Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ROYAL LIVERPOOL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL INQUIRY REPORT

Ordered,
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there will be laid before this House a Return of a report, summary and conclusions, evidence and supporting papers of the independent confidential Inquiry established under section 2 of the National Health Service Act 1977 to investigate the removal, retention and disposal of human tissues following post mortem at Alder Hey Hospital (the Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital NHS Trust) and to make recommendations.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Winter Fuel Payment

Mr. David Marshall: How many pensioners in Scotland are benefiting from the winter fuel payment scheme. [146179]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): About 1 million people aged 60 or over will benefit from the winter fuel payment scheme in Scotland. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that that includes about 11,500 people in his Shettleston constituency.

Mr. Marshall: I welcome the Secretary of State and the Minister of State back to the reality of Scottish politics and wish them every success in their new roles. Their political opponents will be in for a rough ride in the months ahead.
Does the Secretary of State agree that pensioners throughout the United Kingdom and especially in Scotland gave a warm welcome to the winter fuel payment of £200 this winter, particularly because of the severe cold weather of the past five weeks? For once, it was not a choice for some of them between eating and heating, as it was under the Tories. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that if the Tories were ever to regain power—God forbid that that should happen—the winter fuel allowance could be part of the £16 billion-worth of public expenditure cuts that they promise?

Mrs. Liddell: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous comments. I pay tribute to my predecessor, who is now

Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—a job in which all Scotland wishes him well. As not only the first woman to be Secretary of State for Scotland, but the first mother, I am conscious of the fact that this afternoon I am to welcome to Dover House six young people who are to recite Burns for me. That is an appropriate start to my role.
My hon. Friend is correct about the importance of the winter fuel allowance. Like me, he was a Member of the House before the 1997 general election and witnessed the official Opposition's introduction of VAT on fuel. I am pleased that a Labour Government cut VAT on fuel, pleased that a Labour Chancellor is ensuring that every pensioner receives a £200 winter fuel allowance and pleased that, across government, Labour is seeking to deal with fuel poverty. That represents a significant dividing line between this side of the House and that side. We have practical solutions for real problems.

Sir Robert Smith: I offer my congratulations to the Secretary of State and my good wishes to her predecessor in his new role.
Does the Secretary of State realise that those pensioners are receiving a non-means-tested benefit? Can she explain to them why the Government think that personal care should not also be non-means-tested? She proudly referred to the £200. Can she explain to pensioners why the Government plan to cut that back to £150 next winter.

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that the Government have spent more than £9 billion on pensioners in the lifetime of this Parliament. That goes way beyond the proposals on which he fought the last election. He knows that matters of personal care are for the Scottish Parliament and it underlines the power of the devolution settlement that the Scottish Parliament can take such decisions. The Government have made progress in creating a stable economy, low interest rates and low unemployment so we are in a position to benefit every pensioner in the country. We shall do so with fairness and compassion. We shall not pull the wool over their eyes.

Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: I also congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister of State.
The Secretary of State will be aware that in my constituency as in hers, many pensioners are not yet taking up fully the benefits to which they are entitled. We must remind pensioners about the minimum income guarantee because taking it up would give them £100 more in disposable income than they had when the Government were elected. Will she remind pensioners that they ought to take up the minimum income guarantee, especially as the application forms have been simplified.

Mrs. Liddell: Predictably, my hon. Friend makes a sensible point. Many pensioners are too shy to apply for the benefits that are available to them. Indeed, some may not have received their winter fuel allowance, and I urge them to take it up. There is a helpline, and I am sure that the House will not mind me reading out the number, which is 0845–915–1515. Help is available for pensioners and it is important that they realise that the minimum income guarantee is their due. It is not charity; it is their due. Many pensioners are not aware that, from April 2001, pensioners who have savings of up to £6,000 before their


minimum income guarantee award can still receive the minimum income guarantee. The savings limit is to go up to £12,000. That is very important for every pensioner: the Opposition do not like it, but pensioners do.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I too welcome the Secretary of State to her post. May I ask her how the issue of fuel payments relates to the welcome announcement of free personal care? Although extracted at the point of a parliamentary gun, and humiliating for the Secretary of State, it was welcome none the less.
Was the Secretary of State kept in the dark about the announcement yesterday, as suggested by that fine newspaper the Daily Record this morning? If not, can she explain why she said on yesterday's "Today" programme that the Scottish Executive were still considering the matter and would report back—just a few minutes before the First Minister's announcement?

Mrs. Liddell: What a pleasure it is to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place. We have not seen him here for a long time. Indeed, when he last left he said that he was going to Holyrood because this place was—what was it?—an outdated irrelevance. Apparently we were soon to be extinct, but now the hon. Gentleman is coming back. Edinburgh is not big enough for him and his hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney).
In the context of personal care and the Sutherland report, it is a sign of the strength of the devolution settlement that the Government have provided a Scottish Parliament with the will of the Scottish people. As for what I said yesterday on the "Today" programme, the hon. Gentleman will today hear from the Scottish Executive about their arrangements for the Chisholm committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) is present now.
Labour Members believe in devolution as something that strengthens the United Kingdom, unlike the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who wants to split Scotland from the United Kingdom and has been chased back down here by his hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside. He is the weakest link; goodbye.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I add my welcome and congratulations to those extended to the Secretary of State and the Minister.
Does the Secretary of State believe that the winter fuel payment, together with other relevant Government measures, can help to cut the tragic incidence of hypothermia and other cold-related serious illnesses among the elderly, not least in the cold north-east of Scotland?

Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The whole issue of fuel poverty has been at the forefront of the Government's thinking. A fuel poverty taskforce, working across Government and with the devolved Administrations, has come up with real proposals to deal with the problem. It is estimated that some 35,000 deaths in the United Kingdom are caused by diseases related to cold, which is why what the official Opposition propose is such an unpleasant prospect. They intend to get rid of a winter fuel payment that puts £200 into the pockets of pensioners—the people who need it most.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I welcome the Secretary of State and the Minister to their new responsibilities.
May I raise again the question of benefits to pensioners from free personal care? The right hon. Lady says that the Executive are looking at the Sutherland proposals, whereas the First Minister is embracing the Sutherland principles in full. Is there not an incompatibility between those two expressed viewpoints? And what on earth was Lord Lipsey doing in Scotland over the last few weeks if he was not seeking to influence the decision of the Executive? My impression was not that he was there to learn reeling from the White Heather club.

Mrs. Liddell: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not even know what the White Heather club is.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Oh yes he does.

Mrs. Liddell: Perhaps I was being over-generous: I did not think the hon. Gentleman was of that vintage. Anyway, I thank him for his good wishes.
As for the Sutherland proposals for personal care, because of the devolved settlement which the hon. Gentleman's party opposed, the Scottish Executive are in a position to make their own arrangements for care of the elderly. I believe in devolution; I have been committed to it for many years. The opponents of devolution sit on the Conservative Benches, and link themselves to the separatists.
Lord Lipsey is free to go to Scotland and say whatever he wants. Unlike some Opposition parties, we do not seek to cut Scotland off from the rest of the United Kingdom. As the Scottish Executive take further their proposals on the Sutherland report, they will have to consider the means whereby those proposals are implemented. That is common sense: it is what I said yesterday, and what the First Minister said yesterday.
I have known the First Minister for 30 years, and I have a good deal of respect and affection for him. He is leading Scotland along with this Westminster Government, because we believe that together we can create a better Scotland and a better United Kingdom.

Mr. Grieve: I thank the right hon. Lady; I find those remarks reassuring. However, what seems to have occurred in the past 18 months has been the operation of a system in which the Government have given devolution with one hand, but tried to claw it back through the back door—through the mechanism of Labour party control—with the other. May we have some reassurance that that USSR style of Government will not be hers, and that in future there will be transparency and a respect for the arrangements to which devolution inevitably leads?

Mrs. Liddell: I was over-generous in assuming that the hon. Gentleman was much younger than he is, because he obviously lives in some sort of dark age. The reality of devolution is that the Scottish Parliament can take its own decisions. It was Conservative Members who opposed devolution, and who—in some of their wilder proposals—would seek to reduce the powers of Scottish Members in this Chamber. They will be going into the next general election saying, "Please vote for me because I will not be voting at Westminster on your behalf." Those are the


bizarre proposals that the hon. Gentleman promotes. Labour Members believe in partnership—a partnership of the Scottish Parliament with this Parliament, a partnership that rights a 300-year-old wrong, and a partnership that strengthens the United Kingdom.

John Robertson: May I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on becoming the Secretary of State? Does she agree with me—my constituency has one of the highest proportion of over-60s—that over-60s and pensioners are far better off under this Government than they would be if any Opposition party had control?

Mrs. Liddell: I well remember going at the end of last year to a pensioners' club in my hon. Friend's constituency. It was obvious from the support that he was enjoying that his pensioner community very much recognises what the Government are doing for them. As election fever is whipped up and we see the posturing of Conservative Members, of course we have to examine what they would do for the pensioners of Scotland—such as removing the winter fuel allowance. However, many pensioners are interested not only in pensioner issues, but in issues such as the working families tax credit—which is under threat from Conservative Members. Pensioners are also interested in the new deal—which is under threat from Conservative Members. All the communities of Scotland, including the communities in my hon. Friend's constituency and in mine, recognise that the Labour Government are working for the people of Scotland.

Manufacturing Employment

Mr. Graham Brady: What recent discussions she has had with the First Minister regarding manufacturing employment. [146181]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I have had a number of meetings with my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish)— the First Minister of Scotland; I keep forgetting that I must not refer to him as an hon. Member in this place—on the support and development of employment in all sectors of the Scottish economy. It is an exciting time for the Scottish economy, and we shall work together to strengthen that economy.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for those comments. It is clear that, despite having, as she claims a 35-year friendship with the First Minister, she has not necessarily had the fullest discussions possible about the loss of manufacturing jobs in Scotland. With manufacturing jobs going across the country at the rate of 100,000 in the past year, and going at the same rate in Scotland, why does the right hon. Lady not give proper priority to the loss of manufacturing jobs? What is she going to do about it? Is it the responsibility of the Government here in Westminster or of her friends in the devolved Administration in Edinburgh?

Mrs. Liddell: I will take no lessons from the hon. Gentleman on manufacturing industry. He may have forgotten that, last Thursday, there was an Opposition-day debate on manufacturing employment; I know because I replied to it. I can tell him that looking at the Opposition Benches was like looking at the Mary Celeste.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I was here.

Mrs. Liddell: Yes, the hon. Gentleman was present. The SNP Benches were singularly empty.
What the Government are doing for manufacturing industry in Scotland is to create a stable economy, with low inflation. Employment in Scotland is at its highest levels since 1960, and claimant-count unemployment in Scotland is at its lowest level since February 1976. So no one in this House will take lessons from Opposition Members about manufacturing industry in Scotland.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, for the first time in 20 years, the Scottish coal industry is starting to recruit workers? Does she agree that the announcement of 150 vacancies is tremendous news, for the central region of old and for west Fife? The revival of the industry means that we will be able to get cheap coal—and therefore cheap electricity—which will fire Scotland's manufacturing industry and secure employment for years to come.

Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a poignant point. Like him, I represent a mining constituency. [Interruption.] We can hear the barracking from Opposition Members, whose Government sought to destroy the coal industry and coal communities in Scotland. I was very proud to be the Minister who was able to negotiate the deal that will save Longannet. I wish the work force there every bit of luck in the future. The complex has modern technology and committed people with great drive who deserve the support of everyone in this House.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I welcome the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, respectively, to their new posts. I am sure that they would both acknowledge the tremendous contribution made by the onshore oil fabrication sector to the manufacturing base of Scotland and the UK as a whole.
The Secretary of State will be aware of the downturn in employment in that sector, with some large-scale redundancies being the order of the day of late. In her previous ministerial capacity, she will have learned that McDermotts is seeking to retain about 65 per cent. of the surplus in its pension fund. Representations to the firm are in order: can we seek the right hon. Lady's support?

Mrs. Liddell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his good wishes, and I should be happy to meet him to discuss these matters. I am well aware of what is happening with McDermotts, and in the offshore supplies industry in general. Because of the partnership that was developed between the Government, the industry and those who work in it, I was able, as Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, to announce before Christmas an additional investment of £1 billion in the industry in Scotland. That helped to protect the 200,000 jobs that depend on the oil and gas industry. I am aware of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman has raised and should


be happy to meet him in a delegation, if that would be of value to him. I am also happy to make representations with him to Treasury Ministers, and especially to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who I am sure will take an interest in these matters.

Mrs. Irene Adams: I, too, extend my congratulations and good wishes on their recent appointments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Does my right hon. Friend share my fury at the audacity of Conservative Members in raising in this Chamber the subject of manufacturing jobs, on which they have shed crocodile tears both today and last week? When the Conservative Government were in office, my constituency and the area covered by the Paisley postcode lost 95 per cent. of its manufacturing jobs: 10,000 jobs at the mills in Paisley; 5,000 at the Linwood car plant; 5,000 at Babcock; 7,000—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the Secretary of State has got the message.

Mrs. Liddell: I am sure that hon. Members will have noted how Conservative Members responded to the catalogue of disasters visited on my hon. Friend's constituency. The actions of the previous Government decimated the manufacturing sector in Scotland. With the exception of the hon. Members for Lichfield and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), no Conservative Member now heckling from a sedentary position bothered to attend last week's debate on the manufacturing industry. I was there; I replied to it.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I sincerely congratulate the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on their elevation to the Scottish Front Bench. If we had a decent amount of time for Scottish questions, we might even hear the hon. Gentleman, which would be a pleasure. In particular, I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her historic position as the first woman Secretary of State for Scotland.
Now, more than ever, Scotland needs strong voices here at Westminster, and however much we might disagree with what the right hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman say, I am sure that theirs will be strong voices. This afternoon, however, they have addressed the wrong statistics. The fact is that we are facing yet another broken promise by the Labour Government. They promised to increase manufacturing industry in Scotland but the fact is that 300,000 jobs have been lost. Will the right hon. Lady apologise to the people of Scotland?

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Lady is a fine product of St. Columba's in Kilmacolm. I am sure that her former teachers will be very proud of her good manners—slightly more gracious than those of some of her right hon. and hon. Friends.
Manufacturing is very important to the Scottish economy, but what is even more important is building a manufacturing industry for the future. The previous industrial revolution was based on coal, on iron and steel, on shipbuilding and on textiles. The new industrial revolution will be based on knowledge. The Scottish economy is well suited to play its part in that

knowledge-driven economy. I see my job as Secretary of State for Scotland as promoting that knowledge-driven economy. We will ensure that, in the future, Scotland will have as proud a record in employment as it has today, with the best employment figures for more than a generation.

Mr. John Swinney: I welcome the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleague to their office. Bearing in mind the fall in manufacturing employment since Labour came to power in 1997 and the Government's responsibility to create the right economic conditions for manufacturing, is the Secretary of State concerned by the expectation of the First Minister and the Scottish Executive that jobs created by inward investment will have fallen by 11,000 in Scotland from last year to this? Is that because the Government have got the economic conditions wrong for Scotland, or is it just another example of the First Minister and the Scottish Executive failing to deliver?

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman, in one of his rare forays down here, should have noted that manufacturing output is actually up in Scotland. The stability that has been created by this Labour Government and our reputation for competence make Scotland more attractive to inward investors. Separating Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom would damage the Scottish economy and damage jobs.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADVOCATE-GENERAL

The Advocate-General was asked—

Football Transfer Fees

Mr. Jim Murphy: If she will make a statement on representations she has received on the European Commission's proposed reform of European law relating to football transfer fees. [146204]

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): I have received no such representations. However, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is actively involved in this area.

Mr. Murphy: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer, which will no doubt fill the football fans and football players of Scotland with a great sense of reassurance.
Despite the excellent efforts of Craig Brown, Scotland currently lies 25th in the FIFA world rankings, a mere four places above Trinidad and Tobago. The FIFA general secretary said today that a new deal on transfer fees will be announced within weeks. I ask my hon. and learned Friend to use her influence so that, when asked for a legal interpretation, she will ensure that football's unique position is respected. In that way, we can ensure that Craig Brown and the Scotland coach have a generation of young talent for years to come. If we abolish transfer fees, my fear is that up to 10 Scottish clubs will go bankrupt or part time within the next five years.

The Advocate-General for Scotland: If someone beats a path to my door seeking my advice, I will do my best to give a legal opinion, if appropriate. So far as giving help, comfort and support is concerned, I think that the Prime Minister and other Members the Government have already made it plain that they support a system that will assist smaller clubs, promote the development of young players, stabilise the sport and encourage those in it. The junior clubs in my hon. Friend's constituency will, I am sure, be very grateful for his support in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Govan

Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: When she next plans to visit Govan to inspect projects which have attracted EU regional aid. [146182]

The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): I hope to have the opportunity to visit my hon Friend's constituency to see projects that have benefited from EU structural funds, especially the national science centre, which was awarded a grant of £20 million—the largest single award in the west of Scotland from structural funds.

Mr. Sarwar: I join my colleagues in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scotland Office on their appointments. I pay tribute to their predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), now the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, for their support in securing Govan shipyard and the shipbuilding industry on the River Clyde. They will always be welcome in my Govan constituency.
As my hon. Friend the Minister points out, the Glasgow science centre received £20 million from EU development funds. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visit the centre at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Foulkes: The Secretary of State and I will both be happy to do so. My hon. Friend offered congratulations on the work of our predecessors—and rightly so—but he, above all, deserves a great tribute for his excellent work as a constituency Member. During my 21 years as a Member of the House—do not say that it is too long—I have rarely seen such an active and well organised campaign as that run by my hon. Friend. He deserves great tribute. It is thanks to such campaigns that unemployment is the lowest it has been for 25 years and employment is the highest it has been for 40 years. That bears constant repetition to Opposition Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

Magistrates Courts (Derbyshire)

Mr. Mark Todd: What the (a) original estimate was and (b) latest estimated cost is of modernising Derbyshire's magistrates courts. [146207]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to the private finance initiative contract for new courthouses in Derbyshire that is currently being negotiated. The original estimate of the procurement costs in 1997 was £500,000. It is now £1.5 million.

Mr. Todd: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. The cost of that bloated project will increasingly be levied on the council tax payers of Derbyshire. Those in my constituency will measure up the increased bill that they receive against the fact that the local courthouse in Swadlincote will be closed and they will face a bus journey of more than an hour to reach the new super-court in Derby. How does my hon. Friend suggest that that should be explained to them?

Jane Kennedy: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Derbyshire magistrates courts committee made a determination to close the courthouse at Swadlincote and to transfer the work to Derby. As for work on the new court in Derby and the cost of the project, neither officials of the Department nor those of Derbyshire county council or Derby city council believe that work on the shire hall, which is to be brought back into use, could have been undertaken at a lesser—or no—cost. It is a grade 1 listed building of great antiquity. English Heritage strongly advocates its re-use for courts. On occasions, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I cannot win on any account.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will agree that the hon. Lady brings tremendous diligence and skill to her brief. Some of us believe that she wins every time. Will she assure the House that she will bring to the administration of the magistrates courts of West Sussex the same diligence and skill that she applies in Derbyshire?

Jane Kennedy: I thank the hon. Gentleman and can give him that assurance.

Sentencing Standards

Mr. Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on the application of common sentencing standards in England. [146208]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): Sentencing is a matter for the courts. Parliament lays down the parameters within which sentencers must work, but it is then for the courts to decide on the sentence in individual cases. Sentencing guidelines are laid down by the Court of Appeal and the Government have set up the sentencing advisory panel to provide advice for the Court of Appeal when it proposes


to lay down such guidelines. Additionally, the Magistrates Association publishes guidance to assist magistrates with sentencing.

Mr. Brake: I listened carefully to that response. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of a case in my constituency in which someone was found guilty of indecently assaulting a young girl but received no prison sentence. In considering those guidelines, will he look again at common sentencing standards across England to ensure that such crimes receive suitable punishment?

Mr. Lock: I am not aware of the individual case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It would clearly be inappropriate to comment on the sentence imposed and, if there is an appeal, the matter must be referred to the Attorney-General. However, the Home Office is assisting the Magistrates Association to achieve greater consistency by supplying it with figures for each bench showing the sentencing patterns for selected offences and how they vary by petty sessional area. It is hoped that that will be a further inducement to magistrates to maintain consistency—while, of course, recognising the features of the individual cases that come before them.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Is not it a fact that a large proportion of crimes is committed by a small number of people who commit crimes over and again, yet the "three strikes and you're out" legislation that the Government enacted has not been applied in a single case? If the judges will not apply the law, will the Government reconsider it? What is the point of passing laws when judges are so evidently out of touch with what is required?

Mr. Lock: It does not come well from the hon. Gentleman's lips to criticise judges, who, by and large, do an extremely good job. Neither is it fair to say that the courts are too lenient in sentencing. Most people base such comments on what appears in the press; they do not have the benefit of hearing all the evidence or reading the reports. It is interesting to note that, when members of the press were asked to look at a case study and reach a sentence in a recent exercise, they arrived at a range of sentences somewhat more lenient than the courts would have imposed in those cases. I invite the hon. Gentleman to be extremely careful when criticising judges for being too lenient.

Human Rights Act

Sir Sydney Chapman: What assessment he has made of the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the operation of the court system in England and Wales. [146209]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): The courts are responding very well to the requirements of the Human Rights Act. In a majority of cases, human rights points are being raised alongside other arguments in cases that would have come before the courts in any event. Court work loads have been stable since 2 October.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Minister accept that the implementation of the various articles of the European

convention on human rights incorporated into British law will have a devilish impact on the whole legal system in our country? Did he assess the impact before the Human Rights Act was introduced? If so, what estimate did the Government make of the extra cost that would fall on the courts?

Mr. Lock: Promoting a culture of respect for human rights and responsibilities throughout society and enabling British citizens to exercise the same human rights in British courts as those that they can exercise in any part of the European Union is not something that I would describe as "devilish".
I was asked whether there is chaos. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no chaos. In fact, the average length of a hearing was shorter in November 2000 than in November 1999. He also asks about the provision that has been made for additional costs. We plan to spend an extra £21 million on running the courts this year—4.7 per cent. more than the existing provision. We also plan to spend up to an extra £39 million in legal aid payments—a possible addition of 2.3 per cent. It is far too early to say whether those additional provisions will be required. At present, court work loads are stable and the time taken to hear cases is decreasing, so perhaps the predictions of chaos were a little exaggerated.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend refers to a £39 million provision for the legal aid budget. In the light of the debate on legal aid in Committee last week, to what extent does he think that that budget is protected against all future contingencies?

Mr. Lock: My hon. Friend raises an important point, because £39 million extra in the legal aid budget to protect our human rights are one thing, but I understand that the Conservative party's proposals are to take £525 million out of civil legal aid, which would completely remove the ability of people in this country to exercise their civil rights. That proposal would certainly provide no money at all, for example, for the victims of domestic violence who want to get injunctions to prevent them from being repeatedly abused. It clearly shows the value that the Conservative party places on the human rights of such people.

Mr. Simon Thomas: May I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the Human Rights Act is being used as an excuse to close many rural magistrates courts, including the one in Lampeter? Will he comment on the case of a defendant last week who got up at 4.30 in the morning, walked 60 miles to a court case in Aberystwyth and arrived at 4.30 in the afternoon? The magistrates took pity on him and he was discharged. Had the court at Lampeter still been open, he could have gone 15 miles up the road and attended the local magistrates court. How can we deal with human rights when we are forcing defendants to walk 60 miles in rural areas?

Mr. Lock: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman's constituents are fit enough to walk that far. Decisions on whether individual magistrates courts are to close are matters for individual magistrates courts committees. I would not expect any magistrates courts closures to arise directly as a result of the Human Rights Act. That is a smokescreen. Other issues are involved and the quality of


court houses, including their facilities for disabled access, is also important. I am sure that he would want to ensure that every court house has proper access for disabled people.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister recognise that people throughout the country will regard his answers as astonishingly complacent? On the case raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and other matters that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), campaigners in the Borders and mid-Wales recognise that licensees have to travel 74 miles on a round trip for a five-minute hearing because of court closures such as the one at Machynlleth. It is unacceptable for the Minister to wash his hands of the problem and say that it is all a matter for magistrates courts committees, as he and his colleagues have repeatedly done. This mismanaged, bungled introduction of the Human Rights Act has taken place at vast cost. We no longer have local justice in rural areas, and that is the Government's fault. The Minister cannot escape responsibility.

Mr. Lock: Is not it interesting that the framework under which these decisions are rightly taken locally was not passed by this Government, but by the previous one? It was their decision to allow magistrates courts committees to take such decisions, and they must be taken locally. [Interruption.] If Conservatives Members do not like it, they can complain from a sedentary position, but it was their legislation. We believe that these decisions should be taken locally, and they have nothing whatever to do with the Human Rights Act.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: If the Tories are against this human rights thing, should not they be happy that people cannot get to court on time?

Mr. Lock: I often wonder why we have copious briefings from civil servants when, as always, my hon. Friend makes the point far more effectively and succinctly.

Mr. John Burnett: The Minister's Department is currently considering various appeals against the unwarranted closures of magistrates courts, particularly in Devon and Cornwall. Despite the fact that no appeal decisions have been taken by the Minister, magistrates courts committees have usurped his function and gone ahead and closed those courts, thus undermining not only him but the lay magistrates who strongly believe that the courts should stay open. Will he immediately order the reopening of the closed courts?

Mr. Lock: I understand the hon. Gentleman's passion on such matters, but where cases are allocated and which courts sit on which days are not decisions for me or for my colleagues as Ministers in the Lord Chancellor's Department. They are decisions for local magistrates courts committees. I understand his point about the position in Devon and Cornwall, but he will appreciate that no decision has yet been made. It would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt it by making an announcement this afternoon

Lay Magistracy

Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement about the future of the lay magistracy. [146210]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation—if I may call it that—to the Opposition Front Bench as junior health spokesman.
As for the question, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on 14 November 2000, and to my reply to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on 19 December—they are nothing if not persistent. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor gave evidence before the Home Affairs Select Committee last Tuesday and said that he had a very high regard for members of the lay magistracy. They give their time for no reward, reflect the community that they serve and typify the quite remarkable lay involvement in this country's system of justice, and our justice system is better for it.

Mr. Swayne: The Minister is kind, but does she agree that the lay magistracy affords a welcome measure of common sense to the criminal justice system? What thought has she given to increasing the number of lay magistrates at the expense of stipendiary magistrates? She will, of course, recall that the perverse decision in Abergavenny last summer was taken by a stipendiary magistrate sitting alone.

Jane Kennedy: The number of district judges and magistrates who serve are determined by statute. We constantly seek new recruits to the lay magistracy. It is testament to the Government's efforts to increase civic involvement in our justice system that the number of magistrates has been increasing. Indeed, gender and ethnic balance have also improved.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

The President of the Council was asked—

People's Peers

Mr. Gordon Prentice: How many application packs were sent out to aspiring people's peers; and how many were returned (a) complete and (b) incomplete. [146222]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I understand that about 13,000 packs were sent out in response to expressions of interest. Some 3,141 nominations were received by 17 November, of which about 300 arrived via the internet. I understand that only two were deliberately incomplete, and that some other people omitted details by oversight, which the Commission has followed up with the nominees.

Mr. Prentice: Those are fascinating figures—30,000 putative people's peers and 3,141 people who actually


replied. Of that number, only eight "outstanding individuals"—in the words of the Appointments Commission—will be selected in the next eight weeks and given ermine. Is it not the case those eight so-called people's peers can never be representative of Britain? We are creating a legislative joke. Is it not possible, even at this late stage, to join forces with the Liberal Democrats and some Conservative Members to create a legislature that is fit for the 21st century so that we do not persist with this Gormenghast creation?

Mr. Tipping: Those are fascinating comments. I am delighted to hear calls from Pendle—of all places—to work in co-operation with the Liberal Democrats. It has really changed up there.
I know that my hon. Friend is a contender for parliamentarian of the year, but I must gently correct his figures: 13,000 people applied for packs. I am not confident that there will be eight nominees—that is yet to be decided—but I am confident that the new procedure will create an Upper House that is more balanced and representative of the community in which we live.

Mr. Ian Bruce: If the system is so good and there are so many applicants, why do we not simply select all the people to serve in the other place and get rid of the lot who are there right now—or would that reduce the income of the Labour party.

Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman needs to remember that 29 per cent. of Members of the Upper House are from the Labour party. He should reflect on his party's record because other people have not forgotten it.

Select Committees

Mr. John Healey: What representations she has received following the publication of the Government's response to the first report of the Liaison Committee, Session 1999–2000, HC 300, on Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive. [146223]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I have received a number of representations, some in support of, and some in opposition to, the Liaison Committee's proposals.

Mr. Healey: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. The Liaison Committee's report is certainly a mixed bag. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the half hour that the report recommends be used for a debate after questions each week is too short for a decent debate, and that such a debate is the wrong format for holding Ministers to account more effectively? Will she acknowledge the case for devoting more time on the Floor of the House to major reports? Will she consider a slot for tabled oral questions, which could give priority to members of Committees, but would also allow the whole House to exercise its scrutiny function?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting proposal. He will know that the Government were unattracted by the suggestion that there should be a special half hour for those debates, and he makes a

different point that the time would be too short and the format wrong. I wholeheartedly share the view that it is important that we scrutinise and discuss more Select Committee reports. He will know that successive Governments have always found it difficult to find more time to do so on the Floor of the House, by whatever means.
I know that my hon. Friend, and I hope the whole House, will be pleased to learn that whereas in the whole of the previous Parliament we debated only about 50 of the nearly 600 Select Committee reports produced, in the previous Session we discussed 22. That is a good way not only to hold the Government to account but to reflect the worth of Select Committees' work.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady give the House the opportunity to vote on the proposals before the end of the Parliament?

Mrs. Beckett: That is very unlikely.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is it not precisely because previous Governments have always run away from the problems of Select Committees that it would be in the Government's interests to set a new and good example to parliamentarians everywhere by accepting that Select Committees' work is best not only debated but questioned? The response of Ministers, which at the moment is given in written form, would not only enliven but assist the House if it were debated for half an hour as suggested by the Liaison Committee.

Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend knows, I think that the idea is perfectly legitimate and worthy of discussion. Indeed, it has been discussed. She invites us to set a new and good example, and I believe that we have done so by providing far greater opportunities to debate Select Committee reports. However, the Government are not of the view that it would assist the House, irrespective of any impact in Government, for Ministers to be invited or pressed to give an off-the-cuff response, which is in effect what we are talking about, to what may be weighty Select Committee reports. There is genuine creative tension on that point. Surely, the more serious and the more in-depth the work of Select Committees, the more Select Committees want the Government to consider their work fully and give an in-depth response, rather than reacting in the relatively short term.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: The right hon. Lady will recall that the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that there would be a free vote on the Liaison Committee's report, and she has just told my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) that there will be no occasion to have that vote. Is not that a demonstration of the way in which this Executive treat the legislature and of how the right hon. Lady has betrayed her position as Leader of the House?

Mrs. Beckett: No, it is a demonstration of how difficult the Opposition find it to pay attention to what is said. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was asked whether there would be a vote on the matter and whether


it would be a free vote, he correctly said yes, because it is a House matter and House matters always have a free vote.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: May I invite my right hon. Friend to read column 1100 of the Hansard of 13 July 2000, where the Prime Minister explicitly gave the undertaking that there would be a free vote?
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that, in 1992 and 1997, the Select Committees were constituted almost in the last week before the summer recess, and they were not operational until the October? One reason why the House wants to have a free vote on the matter, which is our property, is that the Select Committees can be set up and operational soon after the general election, and not six months later, with Government unscrutinised in the meantime.

Mrs. Beckett: I am entirely familiar with the Hansard reference that my hon. Friend quotes. I am familiar also with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said because I was sitting two places away from him at the time. I understand my hon. Friend's concern about delays in appointments. I hope that he will appreciate that, whatever may have been the position in 1992, in 1997 there was a substantial change in the membership of the House. He will know that, at least in the Labour party, Members were invited to indicate on which Select Committees they would prefer to serve, and an attempt was made to meet as many of those requests as possible. That process takes time. I hope that he will acknowledge that the Government proceeded as expeditiously as we reasonably could in perhaps somewhat exceptional circumstances.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Paragraph 28 of the Government's response to the Liaison Committee's report, which recommends a debate on a substantive motion, says:
The Government also see little advantage in debates on a substantive motion since this would be likely to lead to more pressure on members to take a party political stance not less. This is unlikely to be conducive to a respect for the independence Committees rightly value. Moreover, the more substantial reports often contain a complex set of comments and proposals. It is hard to see how a considered decision could be made purely on the outcome of a substantive motion.
Why, then, are the Modernisation Committee's proposals put to a substantive motion in, for example, introducing deferred votes to our Standing Orders? Could it be that, unlike other Select Committees that are chaired by Back-Bench Members, the Modernisation Committee is chaired by the right hon. Lady and is really a tool of government to force on the House changes in our Standing Orders?

Mrs. Beckett: As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, because she has raised the issue before, the decision to set up a Select Committee on Modernisation and to have it chaired by the Leader of the House was a manifesto pledge made on behalf of the Labour party.
The hon. Lady makes a rather separate point, as was made in the Liaison Committee's report, about the suggestion that there should be substantive motions on Select Committee reports in general. She is correct to say that the Government expressed reservations about that for

exactly the reason that she quotes, namely that it would be much more likely to introduce a decision to have whipped votes than to leave the House to deal freely with Select Committee reports.
If I recall correctly—I am sure that if I am wrong, someone will correct me—it was for precisely that reason that the previous Government abandoned the notion of private Members' motions. It had become an issue where there was whipping on both sides of the House, and it was thought to be counter-productive.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

The President of the Council was asked—

Programming Sub-Committees

Mr. John Bercow: If she will make a statement on the operation of Programming Sub-Committees. [146224]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this issue.
There have been some teething problems. I understand that the procedures adopted were at first significantly more prescriptive than the Modernisation Committee had envisaged, but experience seems to suggest that things are settling down.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for confirming her reputation as the mistress of understatement. Given the widespread concern that programming sub-committees are meeting in private and holding unminuted discussions, that there has already been unresolved disputes about who said what to whom and when, and that nothing in the Sessional Orders requires the continued adoption of this secretive format, why do not the right hon. Lady and the Modernisation Committee strike a blow for glasnost by recommending that, in future, such committees be conducted in public and that a proper minute be kept, so that right hon. and hon. Members can make their own judgment as to whether everything is fair and above board?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman may or may not have had experience of business committees that meet from time to time when legislation is before the House. To a certain extent, it is a matter for Mr. Speaker's ruling. It has always been the case that such business committees meet in private. As for whether there is merit in a note being kept of their decisions, I should always be sorry if disputes arose about such matters. No doubt these are issues that we can continue to discuss. After all, we are engaged in an experiment. I hope—I say this in all seriousness to the hon. Gentleman, who I know has played a distinctive and constructive part in dealing with some legislation already during the Session—

Mr. Bercow: Do not ruin me.

Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry about that.
It is the Government's hope that this will cease to be a matter of such party controversy, and will begin to be a way in which the House can better manage its business and its time. I think that there is scope for such a development, and I very much hope that that will occur.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Clerk of the House

Mr. Tam Dalyell: To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, on how many occasions since 1998 the Clerk of the House of Commons has been sued in legal action; by whom; and what the cost was to public funds in each case. [146225]

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): The Clerk of the House, in his role as Corporate Officer, has been involved in no litigation since 1998. In 1996, action was taken against him as Corporate Officer by Harman (CFEM) Facades (UK) Ltd. That case was settled, as set out in a written answer in my name in the Official Report on 2 November last year. In addition, the hon. Gentleman may wish to know that several civil actions have been brought against the commission as an employer during that period.

Mr. Dalyell: Are we sure, as the House of Commons, that the Clerk should, through the system, be dragged through the courts?

Mr. Kirkwood: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the involvement of Officers of the House in litigation in the courts of the land. The hon. Gentleman may know that the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992 made the Clerk the Corporate Officer of the House. Under that Act, he is given managerial responsibilities for the heritable property of the House and, in that capacity, is enabled to enter into contracts.

Royal Liverpool Children's Inquiry

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I wish to make a statement about the inquiry into events at Alder Hey hospital, Liverpool.
I am today publishing the report of the inquiry into the Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust, known as the Alder Hey Hospital. I am publishing alongside it two further documents. First, the chief medical officer's census into the extent of organ retention in the NHS in England. Secondly, the chief medical officer's recommendations for reform of organ retention procedures. All three documents are now available in the Vote Office. I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your agreement that the parents affected at Alder Hey should also have access to copies of the report.
I would like to record my thanks to the chairman of the Alder Hey inquiry, Mr. Michael Redfern QC, and his fellow panel members Dr. Jean Keeling and Mrs. Elizabeth Powell, for conducting what has proved to be an extremely difficult inquiry. The inquiry was established in December 1999, following evidence to the Bristol inquiry that a large number of hearts from deceased children had been retained at hospitals in the NHS. Alder Hey was one such hospital. It is a world-renowned hospital treating 200,000 children a year. For many years, the hospital has made use of human hearts for research and teaching. The Redfern Report says:
there are now more than 1,600 living children who would have died in infancy or childhood without the improvements in surgical techniques and care which were pioneered in Liverpool.
As the inquiry report makes perfectly clear, however, many of those hearts were obtained without consent. According to the report, in addition to over 2,000 children's hearts, there are a large number of brain parts, eyes taken from foetuses, over 1,500 stillbirths or foetuses and, perhaps most disturbingly of all, a number of children's heads and bodies. The Redfern report reveals
a lack of respect and a failure to appreciate the circumstances which led to the …taking of human material.
For example, the report cites entries about foetal material labelled with the words:
Neck deeply lacerated. Pull it to pieces some time and reject.
Some of those entries date back very many years. However, the number of organs retained by Alder Hey increased dramatically in the seven years following the appointment by the hospital and the university of Liverpool of Professor van Velzen in 1988 as chair of foetal and infant pathology in the department of pathology.
During van Velzen' s time at Alder Hey between 1988 and 1995, he systematically ordered the unethical and illegal stripping of every organ from every child who had had a post-mortem. He ignored parent's wishes, even when they told him explicitly that they did not want a full post-mortem, let alone the retention of any of their child's organs.
According to the report, van Velzen lied to parents. He lied to other doctors. He lied to hospital managers. He stole medical records. He falsified statistics and reports, and he encouraged other staff to do the same.
For any parent, the death of their child is a tragedy. To bury that child, to grieve, to hold precious their memory over the years is how many families gradually come to terms with their loss. It is hard to imagine the trauma and

anguish that each of the Alder Hey parents faced when, many years later, they discovered that their child's body had not been buried intact, as they believed, but had been stripped of its entire internal organs, leaving the body as a shell.
That happened not to one set of parents in Liverpool, but to several hundred. The hospital and the university now admit that they will never be able accurately to tell parents what happened to every organ of every child between 1988 and 1995.
What we do now know is that the vast majority of organs that were taken were never used for medical research. Parents cannot even take comfort in the knowledge that their children's organs were used to help other children. It is clear from the report that the understanding of cot death—for which van Velzen was funded—was not advanced one iota by his practice of stripping organs from the bodies of children.
The question in the minds of parents and others is how van Velzen got away with it for so long. The answer is that the hospital authorities and the university of Liverpool failed to monitor his practices and failed to take action to stop them. Numerous complaints were made. Problems were not properly investigated. Action was not taken.
These failures were compounded by the incompetence and the insensitivity of both the hospital and the university authorities, once the truth did begin to emerge. The hospital seemed overwhelmed by events. The university seemed simply to have turned its back on parents. Some parents faced up to four funerals, as different organs from their children were returned to them at different times. The pain caused to the parents by this dreadful sequence of events is, in my view, unforgivable. I am deeply sorry for the wrong that was done to them, their families and their children. Those who did wrong will now be held to account.
The inquiry report says that Professor van Velzen must never be allowed to practise again in this country. I can tell the House today that he has been referred to the General Medical Council for disciplinary action. I understand that he has been summoned to appear before the GMC later this week. I can also tell the House that the inquiry report has been referred to the Merseyside police and passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions. They will determine whether criminal prosecutions should now proceed.
Four NHS staff, including the current chief executive of the trust, have today been suspended. Their employers will consider appropriate disciplinary action. The role of other NHS staff will be examined by their employers. The doctors criticised in the report have been referred to the General Medical Council. Other staff have been referred to the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked the president of the council of the university of Liverpool to review the evidence in the report and to take appropriate disciplinary action. The current acting chairman of the trust board is today leaving the trust, along with two non-executive directors whose resignations I have today accepted. Also today, I have appointed Angela Jones as the new chair. It is right that the trust should have a fresh start.
Alder Hey hospital relies on its dedicated staff, who have been as shocked as we all are by these events. I want to thank those staff, who have continued through these


difficult times to provide treatment and care for children from Liverpool and elsewhere. The action that I have taken today should help them to re-establish the hospital's relationships with the community that it serves. I am confident that Alder Hey can recover and rebuild its reputation as a leading national and international centre for specialist paediatric care.
What the report describes as
the exceptional practice of van Velzen
between 1988 and 1995 made Alder Hey unique. However, elsewhere in the NHS it is clear that organ retention without relatives' full knowledge and agreement was widespread. The recent national summit on organ retention, which was organised by the chief medical officer, Professor Liam Donaldson, confirmed that that was also the experience of parents in many other parts of the country.
Professor Donaldson's census shows that 105,000 organs are retained throughout the country. Poor standards of cataloguing and record keeping mean that those figures may not be wholly accurate. Twenty-five hospitals account for 88 per cent. of the organs. At least 16,500 of the organs and tissues have been retained in apparent contravention of the law, as they were used for coroners' post-mortems and should not have been kept beyond the time needed to establish cause of death. As at Alder Hey and Bristol, the coroner system throughout the country has proved ineffective in that respect. The current law and post-mortem consent forms are both ambiguous. They talk of taking tissues when they often mean taking organs and they record lack of objection rather than informed consent.
In the past four years, the Government have made an unprecedented effort to protect patients better. The changes that we have already made and the reforms that are still to be introduced enjoy widespread support among both patients and doctors. The NHS is full of good doctors, not bad ones. Our reforms are aimed at supporting them to become even better. They include a new statutory duty on quality for every NHS trust, independent inspection through the Commission for Health Improvement, annual appraisal of doctors that is linked to periodic revalidation, and reform to make self-regulation faster, more open and more accountable.
Now we need to go further. The chief medical officer's census, our consultation with parents and the medical profession, and the reports from Bristol and Alder Hey have formed the basis for Professor Donaldson's recommendations for reform. I am accepting them in full. The major proposals are as follows. First, I am establishing a special commission under the chairmanship of Margot Brazier, professor of law at Manchester university, to oversee the return to families of organs and tissues from around the country, should those families wish to have them. We have ensured that parents who are seeking more information today can obtain it by contacting the NHS Direct telephone helpline.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set in train a review of the coroner system so that we can learn the lessons of what went wrong at Alder Hey and elsewhere.
Thirdly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will establish a review of the accountability and management arrangements between

NHS trusts and universities where senior staff are employed on joint contracts. Fourthly, we will ensure that all NHS trusts provide support and advice to families at the time of bereavement. I expect that arrangement to be in place throughout the NHS later this year.
Finally, the law will be changed to enshrine the concept of informed consent. The existing law in this area has become outdated. The Human Tissue Act 1961 does not even contain penalties for breaches of its provisions. The law has ill served bereaved parents in our country and causes confusion for staff. It must now be changed.
I will therefore bring forward measures urgently to amend the Act to clarify that informed consent must be given, that organs and tissues must be specified and to make it a criminal offence to ignore informed consent.
We will also undertake a wider review of existing laws on all aspects of taking, storing and using tissue and organs from both the living and the dead. When the review is completed, we will seek to legislate to introduce the necessary changes.
The changes in the law will be supported by a new statutory code of practice, which will be issued to the national health service. It will cover organs that are used by the pharmaceutical industry, and it will be accompanied by a new standardised consent form, which will be introduced throughout the health service.
There is one other important point. Informed consent does not need to be at the expense of medical research. Proper post-mortem procedures and archived tissues and organs hold the key to many medical advances, such as discovering the effects and causes of disease, and finding cures for illnesses that disable or kill. However, retaining public confidence in those procedures requires public consent. Members of the medical profession share that view. Indeed, it is reflected in the recent guidance issued by the Royal College of Pathologists.
When I met families from Alder Hey, Bristol and elsewhere, many told me that if they had been asked properly, they would have been only too willing to allow their child's death to help another child live.
Doctors and pathologists have an incredibly difficult job. They have usually acted with the best intentions to create greater understanding of disease and to improve standards of care in a way that avoids causing further anguish to grieving families. Those are laudable aims and honourable intentions. However, as the events at Alder Hey show, modern patient expectations and traditional clinical practices have grown apart. The national health service can no longer assume that the benefits of science, medicine or research are somehow self-evident, regardless of the wishes of patients or their families.
The relationship between patients and the service today has to be based on informed consent. That will require changes in practice, policy and medical education. As I have made clear today, it will also require changes in the law.
The parents whom I have met from Alder Hey and elsewhere have acted with great dignity and purpose. I pay tribute to them. I hope that our reforms will provide some comfort for the pain that they have endured. I commend the reforms to the House.

Dr. Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and for his courtesy


in making it available to the Opposition in advance. As he said, the inquiry came about as a result of the Bristol inquiry, which took in many parents in my area. Our thoughts are with them today, because the publication of the report will reawaken many painful memories.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the balanced way in which he presented his statement, because there is a need for perspective. Nothing would be worse than blowing up the tragedy and thus creating a general climate of fear and anxiety. That would only make more difficult the complex but necessary work of those engaged in the research from which we may all ultimately benefit. The work is necessarily gruesome and we need to maintain a sense of realism about it. I am therefore grateful for the tone of the statement.
I want to concentrate on two specific issues. The first relates to Professor van Velzen and the second to the wider use of retained tissues and organs. It is clear from the statement and the report that Professor van Velzen lied and broke the law. He must answer for that. Is he being investigated elsewhere for similar reasons? If so, is that happening in the United Kingdom or another country? Our regulations must ensure that no doctor guilty of a disciplinary breach can work in the United Kingdom. It should be a statutory duty for doctors to report to their employers, as a matter of routine, any disciplinary investigation that is being carried out into their work in this country or any other country.
The Secretary of State said that the question in the minds of parents and others was that of how Professor van Velzen had got away with his activities for so long. I would add that a question in the minds of most decent people would be, "Why did he do it?" Most of us completely fail to understand the thought processes or motives of such a man.
The taking of organs or tissue, even with consent, should be accompanied by a clear explanation of the purpose for which they are being taken. I hope that the Secretary of State will include such a provision in his proposed legislative change. The Opposition would fully support such a change in the law. We must also question the role of the universities, which should maintain a proper supervisory brief over those whom they appoint to positions as sensitive as the one held by Professor van Velzen.
The Secretary of State is right to say that it is essential that neither the report nor any exchanges in the House should affect the reputation of Alder Hey hospital or its staff, who carry out dedicated, quality work for which they deserve thanks and praise.
Turning to the wider picture, we fully agree with the concept of informed consent. As the Secretary of State said, most parents would agree, if asked, to allow tissue and organs to be used in research for the benefit of others. Some, of course, would not. In that sense, the special commission under Margot Brazier will have a difficult task that will call for great sensitivity.
It is essential that when parents want organs returned, the organs should be returned all at one time, and not on a number of occasions. We must also accept that some parents will not want organs returned, and that some will not even want to know about the retention of the organs of their children, as that could reopen many painful emotional wounds for them. Their views must be respected.
I welcome the proposed review of the coroner system, especially after the Shipman case, which raised even more questions about the system's operation. I also welcome the proposed code of conduct for the pharmaceutical industry, but I suggest to the Secretary of State that it should go further and cover all third parties to whom organs or tissues may be given, especially if money is to change hands. That should apply whether the third parties work inside or outside the national health service.
We fully agree with the need to reform the Human Tissue Act 1961, and I ask the Secretary of State to consider, first, what parallels there might be with the way that tissues are dealt with when individuals donate their bodies for anatomical dissection for medical education purposes, and secondly, whether those rules also need to be amended.
The Opposition will give every support to any legislative change that the Government intend to introduce. If the Government can achieve those changes by means of the Health and Social Care Bill currently passing through Parliament, they would have every support from the Opposition for its speedy passage. It would be ridiculous for both the main parties to approach a general election promising the same changes to legislation, when we could bring about that legislative change imminently.
This matter concerns treating the living and the dead with dignity and respect. We welcome and encourage research—including that involving the use of organs and tissue from the deceased—because we can all gain from it. However, we all lose if such research is not carried out in a climate of decency and respect.

Mr. Milburn: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) for the tone and content of his speech.
On his specific question about Professor van Velzen, the House is probably aware that van Velzen is under investigation in Canada for his activities there. There is evidence that medical records were taken from this country and that they ended up in Canada. There is also evidence that van Velzen retained animal and human organs, which he stored in a furniture container in Canada. The Canadian authorities are currently investigating that case, and a copy of the report will be passed not only to the regulatory bodies in this country but to the medical regulatory bodies in Canada, Holland and other European Union countries.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the need to ensure clear explanations of post-mortem procedures, and of the real scientific and medical benefits of being able to conduct research on organs and tissue. That is important, and we all have a job of work to do in that regard. We must ensure that the public—particularly relatives faced with horrendous decisions soon after a loved one has died—are better informed of what a post-mortem entails and of what the advantages and disadvantages are. There is a job of public education that we will need to undertake. As I said in my statement, there is also a job of work to do to ensure that medical training procedures and systems are changed.
On the return of organs, it is extremely important that the commission—which, incidentally, is operating in shadow form and will come into full being in April with, I hope, the agreement of the House—learn the lessons of


the mishandling of events at Alder Hey over recent years. We cannot have parents and relatives facing multiple funerals as a consequence of organs being returned in the way they were.
The hon. Gentleman also made another important point. People have a right to know, should they want to take up that right, whether organs have been retained. They also have a right not to know. The commission must enshrine that principle. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's offer of support, but, on the feasibility of amending the Health and Social Care Bill, I am advised—we have checked this—that it is not possible to use the Bill to achieve the legislative changes that we want to make to the Human Tissue Act 1961. As soon as possible, however, we shall seek another legislative opportunity to do precisely that.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the Secretary of State allow me to express a couple of views that families on the Wirral have asked me to put forward? First, they stress that parents who lose their children never get over it; the best they can do is live with it. The events that my right hon. Friend described make it much more difficult for them to live with the death of their children as other parents might. Secondly, they do not want to appear to be luddites. They are not against research, but when research might be carried out, they are anxious that parents should be key players in deciding whether it should proceed, so I am sure that they will draw great satisfaction from my right hon. Friend's statement that he intends that parents should not only be involved, but should be the key decision makers.

Mr. Milburn: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for those remarks. He is right. In my dealings with the Pity II organisation, which represents some Alder Hey parents, and the National Committee on Organ Retention, which represents parents throughout the country who have faced such a situation, I have been most impressed by how movingly they say that, had they been given the opportunity, they would of course gladly have donated their child's organs to help another child. Some would not, however, which is the important point. Donation has to be based on the consent of the parent or the relative. Tragically in this case, the opportunity to give or withhold consent was never offered to the parents at Alder Hey.

Mr. Nick Harvey: The Secretary of State will be aware that I have been involved in this issue for some time—since parents in my constituency discovered that their children had been victims at Bristol. My constituent Mrs. Michaela Willis became the national chair of the organisation representing parents. On behalf of them all, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, his blunt acknowledgement of the seriousness of these problems, and his apology on behalf of the NHS for the great wrong that has been done and the grief felt as a result of it. That represents a marked contrast with the reaction of hospital authorities when questions were first asked.
The Secretary of State rightly condemned a particular individual, but how widespread has such practice been throughout the country? By today's standards, would we not consider the typical attitude to be arrogance belonging to a different era, not to a modern health service that treats

informed patients? I express my appreciation of the fact that both today's reports pull no punches and I welcome the specific proposed changes, including to the law. Although they are significant, it is probably even more important that they should not be rushed.
On two specific points, I urge the Secretary of State to consider whether Professor Brazier's commission ought to be more permanent than he implied and whether an independent body should specifically be charged with on-going consideration of all such issues rather than examining problems that have arisen in the past.
Secondly, if we are to expect doctors—as I am sure we are—to sit down and spend far more time patiently going through the benefits and the issues with parents and other relatives, that will obviously have considerable resource implications. Will there be someone with expertise in each hospital? There is no doubt that if these matters are handled correctly, in the vast majority of cases parents will see the benefits and will want to feel that something can be learned from the deaths of their children.

Mr. Milburn: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Mrs. Willis and all the work done by her national committee. I have had the pleasure of meeting her and her fellow committee members, and she and others have helped to contribute to the chief medical officer's recommendations which I announced to the House today.
The hon. Gentleman is broadly right in what he says about practices generally. Practices that might have been considered acceptable in the 1950s or 1960s are not considered acceptable nowadays, for the simple reason that we live in a very different era. Public and patient expectations are very different. Systems, ways of working and, I think, the whole culture of the health service have lagged behind; it needs to catch up, and it needs to catch up quickly.
I think that we should be optimistic. Discussions with the medical profession—whether with the British Medical Association, which welcomes some of the changes that we seek, or the Royal College of Pathologists—have shown an enormous willingness on the profession's part to adapt to the new environment in which we all find ourselves. In many ways, doctors in some parts of the country have been leading the changes, and I pay tribute to them. We must build on that, and ensure that the appalling practices that took place at Alder Hey are not repeated.
I will gladly consider the basis for the commission. We need to think about that. I think it right for the commission to be given a specific job to do in the first place—and it will be an extremely difficult job: make no mistake about it. We shall then need to think about whether the commission should continue in a permanent form thereafter.
Some trusts—well over half, I believe—already provide specialist bereavement advisers. We need to ensure that in the future not just some but all trusts take the issue extremely seriously.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I understand that at present no criminal sanctions can be used against those who have perpetrated what most of us would regard as crimes. Would my right hon. Friend ensure that any legislation that is introduced—before the


general election, I hope—will make it unlawful, indeed a criminal offence, either to possess or to dispose of a human body or its parts?
How does my right hon. Friend think that the injustices done to bereaved parents can be addressed? Is his Department floating any ideas for a compensation scheme? May I impress the urgency on him? Often, in cases of emergency, the House has managed to pass legislation in a single day when there has been no opposition. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider the possibility of passing legislation before the election.

Mr. Milburn: In regard to urgent legislation, we shall certainly discuss with the Opposition parties, through the usual channels, how best we can make rapid progress. I take the point made by the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) that it is important for us to get these things right, but there is clearly great urgency in this case.
What my hon. Friend said about criminal sanctions is absolutely right. I understand that, under the Human Tissue Act, the coroner's rules of 1984 and the Coroners Act 1988, although the taking of human tissue or organs is illegal, we have no criminal sanctions. That gap in the law must now be filled, and we shall present proposals in both the short and, as I have said, the medium term to correct those deficiencies.
On the two occasions on which I met parents in my office—and indeed last night, when I spoke to Mr. Ed Bradley, who is the chairman of the Pity II Group of parents—the compensation issue generally was not raised. People will have different views on the issue. Some parents will feel very strongly about it, whereas others will not. However, I think that there is consensus on what the parents really want. They want an apology and an explanation and to know that those who are responsible for what happened to them and their families will be brought to book. Above all, they want to know that it will not happen again, and that action will be taken quickly to prevent it from happening again. We are committed to taking that action.

Mr. David Wilshire: I am grateful for the chance to contribute because the death of my young daughter some years ago makes me feel very involved in this particular issue.
Although I understand the Secretary of State's anger, may I ask him to reflect on three matters? I should like, first, to underline a point that has already been made. Probably because I am a coward at heart, I do not want someone knocking at my door to discuss parts of my daughter. I simply do not want wounds to be reopened.
Secondly, will the Secretary of State keep in mind the difference between the use of parts of a dead child and the way in which they are obtained? In the anguish of the moment, I forgot to ask whether any parts of my daughter could be used to help others. I can only say that I wish that someone had asked me.
Thirdly, will the Secretary of State think very carefully about the compensation issue? The bottom line is that the only thing that every bereaved parent really wants is his or her child back. To maintain one's sanity, one has to accept that that cannot be. I speak with some feeling when I say that the pursuit of compensation can all too easily prolong the grief.

Mr. Milburn: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He understands these issues

better than most of us because he has faced precisely the type of situation we are discussing. I give him a very clear assurance that we will not have the situation that we had at Alder Hey, where hospital authorities were ringing up parents out of the blue to inform them that they had found yet another organ from their child. We will not have that.
As I said to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), parents absolutely have a right to know, if that is what they want. Equally, they have a right not to know. We have to respect the views of the individual parent. I certainly intend that the commission should operate in such a manner that it enshrines respect for parents and for relatives as I have described, precisely to avoid the type of situation that we had at Alder Hey not only once, but, sadly, on very many occasions.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Not only as a Liverpool MP, but, more important, as the uncle of one of the mothers who has been traumatised by these events, may I tell my right hon. Friend how welcome his statement has been—not only for the openness of his account and the range of his conclusions; but for the expedition with which he is seeking to implement the necessary action? In the course of his inquiries, has he been given any reason to be concerned about allegations that the hospital sold live tissue to pharmaceutical companies? If so, could he elaborate on that?

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. On the issue of the sale of organs taken from live children at Alder Hey, it is our understanding that there was such a practice at the hospital in the early 1990s. We suspect that there was such a practice also at other hospitals across the country. Thymus glands were taken without the consent of parents and handed to a particular pharmaceutical company, to produce drugs that help to avoid the rejection of transplanted organs. It therefore clearly had medical and clinical benefits, but the central issue for the House and for parents is that the organs were sold without consent.
In my view, the principle and issue of consent must come first. I assure my hon. Friend that we will issue very clear guidance to the national health service about the matter, and the statutory code of practice that I mentioned in my statement will cover precisely the set of circumstances that he described.

Mr. Tim Boswell: The Secretary of State's emphasis on informed consent is entirely welcome, but will he accept that it is likely to require NHS hospital trusts to invest a great deal of time and effort in handling individual cases sensitively? Will he give attention to two particular matters? First, if a mother is recovering from a difficult confinement or emergency procedures, will he ensure that no consent is sought from her at that time? Secondly, would it not be highly desirable if both parents involved had to give consent jointly and subscribe to it together? I recognise that it may be difficult to make that a legal requirement, but it would remove any question of subsequent recrimination.

Mr. Milburn: In respect of matters of timing and pressure on hospitals, it is true that changes in practice will be needed. Many hospitals have changed their practice, and the chief medical officer issued interim guidance to the national health service in March last year


on some of these issues. I am pleased to say that it has produced some changes and improvements, and has led to issues such as this being handled more sensitively in many parts of the NHS—although, sadly, not in all parts. It is true that there will be challenges in that regard.
The NHS faces a choice. We can go on as before, pretending that we can live in the previous century; or we can bring practices up to date, so that they are more relevant for this century. That is no choice at all: the national health service has to change.
On the specific issue of consent, there are profoundly difficult issues that we must get right. That is why the code of practice will involve consultation—with the medical profession, parents' organisations and bereaved parents—so that we can get right the practicalities of informed consent, and avoid some of the problems that the hon. Gentleman described.

Mr. Eddie O'Hara: I, too, thank my right hon. Friend for the openness and feeling with which he confronted the issues in the awful report that has been presented to us. Will he say whether Professor van Velzen, as distinct from the hospital, is being investigated over the sale of organs? The professor has damaged the high and hard-earned reputation of a fine hospital. Will my right hon. Friend assure people on Merseyside that he will give special support to Alder Hey hospital to help it win back its reputation?
The parents are the ones who have suffered most. Will my right hon. Friend consider carefully the question of compensation, and respect the parents' wishes? Will he bear in mind also that a number of parents have incurred great expense, on top of the grief that they have suffered? Finally, will he assure me that they will receive a personal apology—as distinct from an impersonal apology—for all that they have suffered?

Mr. Milburn: On the latter point, my hon. Friend is right. He is as aware as I am that the events described by the Redfern report could not have been handled in a more insensitive fashion. What happened, and how it was handled subsequently, could not have been more appalling. We must learn from that.
I am not aware that van Velzen was implicated in the sale of organs. He may well have been; that is something which we will have to ascertain.
Let me repeat what I said earlier about Alder Hey. It is a fine hospital, staffed by fine people. The doctors, nurses and others who work there have been through thick and thin over the past few years. Yes, they will need specialist support. Strenuous efforts will have to be made by the community and the hospital authorities to rebuild the bond of trust which I know so many people in the hospital are desperate to do. I hope that, before too long, I will be able to visit the hospital and meet some of the parents to discuss these issues.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Bereaved parents in my constituency of Southport on Merseyside were probably the first to ring the bells about Alder Hey. They were not necessarily alarm bells but they certainly brought the matter to the attention of the House.
What is happening with consent forms? The old ones are still being signed. Is the consent form to be changed immediately, and what will happen thereafter? Can the word "disposal" please be explained? It could mean that the hospital, or Liverpool university—which is not blameless by a long way—could dispose of organs by sale. They are saying that the disposal was not by way of a sale but had a "transaction fee" attached. Does the right hon. Gentleman go along with that?

Mr. Milburn: It is true that there are many different consent forms within the national health service. Myriad advice is available from a host of organisations such as the Child Bereavement Trust, the Royal College of Pathologists and, indeed, the Department of Health. My view, which is also the recommendation of the chief medical officer, is that we must end that nonsense. We must have a single, standardised consent form, used in all parts of the national health service, so that parents, relatives and patients know what their rights are. We will consult on that; we need to get it right and ensure that the new consent form does not replicate some of the disadvantages of previous consent forms. That is precisely what we are committed to doing, and we will try to do it as quickly as possibly. However, as the events at Alder Hey have shown, sometimes when things are rushed, people get them wrong. I am determined that we learn the lessons from that and get the consent form right.
As for the disposal of organs, particularly the selling of organs, we need to look at the issue in detail. We need to ascertain the facts. We will enshrine in the code of practice precisely the arrangements that the national health service needs to undertake in the future.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: This is a truly awful situation, with echoes of the grave robberies of the 19th century. Listening to my right hon. Friend's statement, I was struck by the fact that the commercial pressure to sell organs needs to be looked at. Does the report contain any reference to the pressure on hospitals to generate income at a local level?
In looking at where we go from here, in particular at the reforms now going through the House and the emphasis on the role of the patient, is it possible to bring forward proposals to involve patients at a local level in the ethical decisions that are made in this context?

Mr. Milburn: When these events were taking place at Alder Hey it was, as the report makes clear, a time of huge change in the national health service. The internal market was being introduced into the health service, although I do not particularly want to go into that today because I do not think it appropriate. However, there were very real financial pressures, and from the outset questions were raised over the way in which van Velzen was appointed and whether appropriate funding had been made available for his post and his department. That is what the report states—clearly we must learn from that too.
Apart from the specific changes that we have to make in response to the report and to other evidence, we need to effect a wider set of changes in the NHS. Although they are extremely simple on one level, they are extremely complex on another. We need to ensure that our interests—those of the people who use the service; namely, the patients—always come first. It is the vested


interest of the patient that counts. That means that, in future, some of the decisions that used to be made behind closed doors must be brought out into the open.
I believe profoundly that some of our proposed changes—for example, the appointment of patients to trust boards and patients forums, with patients on the spot in the hospital—will make a profound difference.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I thank the Secretary of State for the way he dealt with the statement. One of the new facts that emerged is the information about the number of hospitals that are holding organs. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman must be in a dilemma; tomorrow, the newspapers and the media will try to find out which hospitals are involved. Clearly, on the one hand, the sooner we can give that information, the better—at least perhaps people will know that their hospital did not retain organs. However, on the other hand, hospitals will have to be ready to provide the information. Will the Secretary of State help the House by telling us how that will be handled? He might also help the media, by asking them to be careful how they deal with the matter.

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Yes, those are real dilemmas—we should be clear about that. I believe profoundly in one important principle—it is a question that I, as Secretary of State, and all my colleagues have to be able to answer: in the end, does the patient have the right to know? The answer must be yes. However, that brings downsides as well as upsides. Risks are attached to that principle—not least because, sometimes, the information is not handled as responsibly as it should be. In this case, we should put the information into the public domain and that is precisely what we will do.

Maria Eagle: I thank my right hon. Friend for his steadfast determination from the beginning to ensure that the full truth of what happened at Alder Hey hospital was published. I also thank him for his acknowledgement that the Royal Liverpool children's hospital is a fine one, staffed by many dedicated employees, who have had a difficult time during this period. Every day, the hospital saves and improves the lives of children and it will continue to do so.
For 15 months, many of my constituents from bereaved families have been trying to get at the full truth of what happened to their child. How long will it be before we can tell those families that they have the fullest possible information—even if it is incomplete? How long before we can say, "That's it, you know everything that there is to know"?

Mr. Milburn: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the role that she has played both in liaising with the parents and in supporting those who were working at the hospital through extremely difficult times. In some ways, we shall never know the full truth about what happened at Alder Hey. Certainly, the lack of accurate records and the appalling record keeping mean that some parents will never know the truth about what happened to their child—I regret that deeply, but, sadly, little can be done about it now.
The Redfern report offers the best insight that we can have into what actually happened and into the number of children and other people who were affected. However,

I hesitate to say that that is the end of the story. Every time that I think we have reached the end of the story of Alder Hey, a new piece of information comes into the public domain—as we saw on Friday, in respect of the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) on thymus glands. The work of Michael Redfern and his panel has given us as comprehensive a picture of what happened at Alder Hey and of the subsequent events as we are likely to get.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I join others in thanking the Secretary of State for his frankness. He mentioned that other hospitals were involved. Although the report dealt specifically with England and Wales, I am aware of the situation in Northern Ireland. Is the right hon. Gentleman consulting Ministers in the devolved regions to ensure that the same regulations are carried through?
Earlier, the Secretary of State referred to coroners courts. It is my understanding that consent is not needed for a coroners court order, so, as we have discovered, the coroners court has failed actively to uphold its own legal system. Therefore, how do we encourage those in executive positions—whether medical practitioners or administrative staff—to be less concerned about defending the record of the institutions and to come clean when there are faults in them? May I press the Secretary of State at least to communicate with the World Health Organisation about the introduction of a world health regime in which those with black records cannot move from one country to another, which happened so often in the last century?

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Indeed, I agree with many of them. As he rightly says, the chief medical officer's report does not apply to Northern Ireland, but discussions with colleagues in Northern Ireland on how best to make progress will be necessary.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that coroners' post-mortems do not require consent, for the good reason that they take place in cases involving unusual circumstances—perhaps murder or death during surgery. However, it is now painfully clear that the coroners rules have not been applied as they should have been; they have been broken. For example, hospitals have no right to retain organs beyond the point necessary to establish the cause of death, yet that has happened.
As the Alder Hey report makes graphically clear, there will be patients who have been promised a decent burial for their children when the investigation has taken place, but that has not happened. We must learn the lessons of those events. We must therefore review not just hospital post-mortem procedures, but how the coroner system operates in tandem.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: I thank the Secretary of State for commissioning these very important reports and for his clear commitment to change. Has he any further information on how the parents and their families will be helped to cope with new and traumatic information? What progress has he made in improving accountability at Alder Hey hospital itself and at the university?

Mr. Milburn: Accountability issues have to be addressed not only in the NHS, but in the education


system. Inevitably, many colleagues' questions have dwelt on the role of the Royal Liverpool Children's NHS trust, but the university of Liverpool authorities need to answer some profound questions, and the NHS and higher education will need to answer some joint questions, too.
We have tried to make support available today for those parents who wish to read the report and to ensure that counselling, and so on, is available. I believe that if a properly informed consent regime is to operate in all parts of the NHS, it will be necessary for hospitals throughout the country to invest appropriately in bereavement services. Some do, some do not; but all will have to in future.

Mr. David Watts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that two parties are responsible for this tragedy—the hospital trust and the university? Given that he has described how he will hold the health service accountable today, is it the intention that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will make a further statement to deal with the other issues that have arisen?

Mr. Milburn: No, it is not—at least, not so far as I am aware—but I have held discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and I can assure my hon. Friend that he and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—who is responsible for the coroner system—take very seriously indeed the fault lines that have appeared not just in the NHS, but in the coroner system and, indeed, the university system in relation to Alder Hey.

Mrs. Joan Humble: May I reinforce the point that was made earlier about information being passed to parents? On Friday, I was approached by two parents who had lost baby girls in the early 1980s. They have not yet received a reply to a letter sent in July last year asking for information about what had happened to their babies. They know that organs disappeared, but they do not know what, they do not know why and they do not know how. Will my right hon. Friend please ensure that those parents who are still waiting—some others have waited for as long as my constituents—get some form of reply? It might not be in the detail that they want, but they deserve at least the courtesy of being given some information.

Mr. Milburn: I very much agree with that sentiment. I shall certainly take what steps I can to ensure that those parents receive information. People should not wait that long; they should receive replies. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the information has not always been available in the way it should have been, so the authorities have not been able to reply to parents in the way they should have done. However, I hope that the advent of the new commission will help to cut through some of that bureaucracy and to provide a streamlined system so that parents and other relatives receive the information that they require.

Mr. Ivan Lewis: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way he is bringing this tragic and scandalous cover-up to some kind of conclusion. I know that several of my constituents have been victims of the Alder Hey case and they will be grateful for the apology

that he has made today on behalf of the national health service and, more important, for my right hon. Friend's determination that similar events should never happen again.
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the case of my constituent Mrs. Elaine Isaacs, who, 12 years after the tragic suicide of her husband, Cyril, by chance discovered that his brain had been retained without the consent of the family? That fact was confirmed by a message left on her answering machine by a doctor. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will insist that that case is investigated thoroughly and that the whole issue of the retention of brains in cases where the cause of death may have been related to mental illness will be considered specifically? Many fear that what happened in this case has been common practice in the NHS for many years.

Mr. Milburn: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I will look into the specific case that he mentioned. He is right to suggest that it has broader implications, and we have to ensure that the new informed consent regime applies across the piece. It should apply not only to the relatives of children, but to the relatives of adults who suffered from mental or physical illness. Over the next few weeks and months, there will be an opportunity to explore how best we can put in place an informed consent regime that will apply to all parts of the national health service.

Mrs. Ann Cryer: This morning I had a meeting with a representative of the National Kidney Research Fund. Both he and I are a bit concerned that the Alder Hey findings could have a negative impact on the donation of organs. According to my colleague, the shortage of kidneys already means that 5,000 would-be recipients, many of them children, wait an average of nine years for a kidney transplant. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the media could play a positive role by encouraging the carrying of organ donor cards at all times, particularly in our ethnic minority communities where the shortage of organs is even more acute than among the rest of the population?

Mr. Milburn: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her extremely sensible remarks. It is important that the results of the Alder Hey case do not have an adverse impact on organ donation. My hon. Friend is right to say that we face a shortage of organs, and there are a variety of reasons for that—some good and some bad. The fact that there are fewer road traffic accidents and the great advances in neurosurgery in recent years mean that we do not have the number or quality of organs that are required for transplant purposes.
A vigorous campaign is encouraging more and more people to carry organ donor cards, and many people—about 8 million or about 14 per cent. of the population—already do. My hon. Friend conveys an important message, and I hope that those who cover these events will act responsibly and ensure that the messages that are imparted to the public do not do lasting damage to the number of organ donations.

Dr. Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend said that there had been many complaints. It is clear that they were not taken seriously; otherwise the extreme practices that are described in the report would


not have taken place for so long. That revelation and my casework lead me to conclude that hospital authorities in the NHS fail to investigate complaints properly, especially when they are against senior staff who are able to influence the promotion prospects of their colleagues. Is he confident that the changes that are being implemented in the NHS complaints procedure and other arrangements will deal with the problem of how such matters are investigated?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes a cogent point. The existing complaints procedure is inadequate. It must be changed and made more independent. However, we should not use the failures in the system to excuse the failures of individuals at Alder Hey. The complaints were clear and consistent, and did not come just from patients. Ironically, many of the complaints about van Velzen's procedures came from other doctors. For example, there was a huge backlog in the number of post-mortem cases and he did not undertake the appropriate histological examination. Doctors in the trust complained about that to van Velzen, to the pathology department and, as the report makes clear, to managers. Sadly, the appropriate action was not taken. We must learn the lesson of that and ensure that internal procedures work. We need checks and safeguards but, more important, we must use external complaints from patients to introduce change rather than to cover up problems.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Did any of the complaints lead to internal inquiries at Alder Hey? Untoward incident procedures are dealt with internally. If there were internal inquiries, what were their substance? Were they anything more than a cover-up and whitewash of those unhappy events?

Mr. Milburn: When my hon. Friend gets an opportunity to read the report, he will see that an endless succession of inquiries was conducted by the university, the hospital authorities and senior clinicians, but they came to nought. Is not that precisely the series of events that we see all too often in the NHS? Everyone knows that there is a problem, but no one does anything about it and the patients suffer. That is why we need not only a new culture and way of working in the NHS, but new systems. That is why clinical governance, a statutory duty of quality, a patient advocacy service and a patients forum that is independent of the hospital are needed in every trust. Those will make a profound difference because they will break down the barriers that have often meant that serious complaints have not been dealt with as they should have been.

Dr. Howard Stoate: The dismay expressed by all hon. Members will be shared by the many people who work in the NHS who will feel extremely let down by what has happened. How can we ensure that such tragic events, from which we must learn great lessons,

will not massively undermine public confidence in the NHS, which would be detrimental to patient care in the long term?

Mr. Milburn: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's comments. It is important that the trenchant criticisms of the Redfern report and the chief medical officer do not allow us to lose sight of the truism that the overwhelming majority of people who work in the NHS—the doctors, nurses, managers and so on—are doing their best for patients. They are good—not bad—people. We cannot allow a few bad apples to damage the reputation of the health service as a whole. It is true that profound cultural changes must take place.
Public confidence will be most undermined if problems are covered up—we will not be able to deal with them unless we can get them out in the open. By dealing with them, we will rebuild public confidence in Alder Hey and in the health service as a whole.

Mr. Hilary Benn: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), when my right hon. Friend reviews the law will he take the opportunity to examine some of the areas of legal uncertainty that currently surround the taking of organs for donation, such as issues pertaining to elective ventilation? With the informed consent of patients and their relatives, we might be able to increase the number of organs for donation.

Mr. Milburn: Those are hugely important and sensitive issues, and we will of course have to consider them. There is a more general point that we have to view informed consent as something that applies not only to a narrow group of patients but to every single patient in the NHS. We have a long way to go, but I believe that the changes in law, training and practice recommended by the chief medical officer, which I have outlined this afternoon, will produce the right results.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 114 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (legislative proposals and other matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland)) and Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)),

That—

1. The matter of human rights and equality in Northern Ireland, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
2. The Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 8th February at 2.30 p.m.; and
3. At that meeting—

(a) the Committee shall take questions for oral answer; and shall then consider the matter of human rights and equality in Northern Ireland, referred to it under paragraph (1) above;
(b) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at 5 p.m.; and
(c) at the conclusion of those proceedings a Motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be moved by a Minister of the Crown pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(5) (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).—[Mr. Pope.]

Question agreed to.

Licensed Victualling (Regulation of Hours)

Dr. Howard Stoate: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit licensing authorities to regulate the sale of alcohol from licensed premises after 11 o'clock at night in prescribed circumstances, in prescribed locations and on prescribed days.
It is estimated that some 40 per cent. of violent crimes, 78 per cent. of assaults and 88 per cent. of criminal damage cases are committed while the offender is under the influence of alcohol. The Government's White Paper, "Time for Reform", contains proposals for the modernisation of our licensing laws which would help to reduce the levels of alcohol-related crime in this country.
One key proposal is for flexible opening hours for pubs and clubs, with the potential for 24-hour opening. The aim of that proposal is to discourage binge drinking before closing time and to avoid the mass exodus on to the streets of drinkers from town centre pubs after 11 o'clock. Research indicates that over 50 per cent. of all arrests for drink-related crimes occur at that time, while 47 per cent. of all incidents of violence and disorder take place at closing time on Friday and Saturday evenings.
Fear of alcohol-related violence and intimidation has also meant that large numbers of people avoid town centres on weekend evenings, and that has had a significant effect on many town centre economies. It is hoped that the introduction of flexible opening hours would lead to a significant reduction in reports of drink-related offences and arrests, a reduction in the incidence of bingeing and drunkenness, the increased availability of transport facilities and fewer reports of noise nuisances.
Flexible hours have the potential to create a new generation of more responsible, socially aware drinkers, who are less likely to get drunk and less tolerant of drunkenness and drunken behaviour. Longer opening hours would help to place greater emphasis on the social function of pubs, and encourage people to drink less, or at least more slowly and responsibly. However, any relaxation of licensing regulations in favour of prolonged opening must proceed with caution.
Under the proposals in the White Paper, the courts would consider reasonable objections to an application for extended hours based on crime and disorder issues, public safety and public nuisance considerations, but the burden of proof would fall on the objector, not the applicant. It would be far from easy, in advance of the licence being granted, to provide substantive evidence that the extension of premises' opening hours would lead to an increase in crime and disorder or cause unreasonable public nuisance.
If local authorities possessed a town centre strategy, clearly defining what is and what is not acceptable in licensing and planning terms, it would be possible to provide the substantive evidence needed. Unfortunately, few local authorities possess such a strategy. In the light of the White Paper and the Human Rights Act 1998, many local authorities face the problem that, having raised no objection to one application for extended opening hours, they find it extremely difficult to object to a second application for a similar extension of opening hours, even if they have strong grounds for believing that the presence

of two venues with extended hours in the same town centre would be unsustainable. The powers of local authorities to control and regulate the night-time economy are therefore in urgent need of review.
The assumption made in the White Paper is that if more pubs and clubs are allowed to open for longer, there will be both a gradual drift from premises and lower densities of people in each place. There is a case in Dartford for allowing certain premises to open for longer to reduce the number of people on the street at any one time, but there is a feeling that allowing a significant number to be open for longer would lead to a greater and potentially unsustainable influx of people into the town centre to fill any spare capacity that would be created.
We need not simply flexible opening hours but staggered opening hours in our town centres. Given, though, that a system of staggered opening hours is unlikely to be achieved through a voluntary agreement between licensees and the licensing authority, there is a clear need for a new regulatory framework to be introduced.
If a town centre management strategy framework existed with a clearly defined town centre strategy and guidelines for the development of a night-time economy, local authorities would be able better to assess the impact of each application for extended hours, and would be able to point to the framework if it felt that a particular application was unsustainable.
I would like to see local authorities placed under a legal duty to produce such a town centre strategy management framework. Authorities would also have a duty to consult local residents, the police, the emergency services and licensees on its contents to ensure that it fully reflected the needs, rights and responsibilities of each section of the community.
Though the local authority would still have to accept the burden of proof should it decide to object to an application, it would be able legitimately to object if it deemed it not to meet the development criteria set out in its framework.
Officers of my local council tell me that the lack of an effective consultation mechanism between the council, the police, licensees, residents and emergency services has undermined any attempts to establish an effective town centre strategy.
A town centre management framework would not only enable more joined-up thinking to take place but would allow local people to have a genuine say in how they want their town centre to develop. It would also require the local authority to evaluate what expansion of the local night-time economy could be tolerated within the existing service infrastructure, and require it to establish a set of clear long-term objectives for the development of the town centre. As such, it would make the licensing procedure more open, more transparent and more accountable. Having been involved in the consultation process, local people would have a clearer understanding of how the licensing system operated and how their town centre was being managed, and would be more inclined to make representations to the local authority and so play an active role in shaping the future of their own community.
In short, a legally enshrined town centre management framework would provide local authorities, working in partnership with local agencies and residents, with the


opportunity to forge a joint strategy and better manage and regulate the night-time economy. If local councils are prevented from exercising adequate control of the night-time economy, it is likely that further fissures will appear in the fabric of urban society; disenchantment with the ability of the local authority to manage the town centre will grow; and urban residents will become increasingly disinclined to use their town centres. For those reasons, I recommend placing on local authorities a legal duty to establish a town centre management framework.
In conclusion, I shall read a letter of support that I have received from the divisional commander of part of the Kent police, Superintendent David Ainsworth:
In respect of the evening economy there is a need to achieve the right balance for all town centre users taking full cognisance of issues such as housing policy, access to transportation, food and liquor licensing, lighting. CCTV schemes, entertainment licensing, parking, emergency service provision and pedestrianisation … I very much support this initiative by Dr Stoate, the Member for Dartford. As Chair of the Dartford Community Safety Partnership, I see the management framework he calls for as representing a major step forward in terms of establishing the basis for positive engagement by both public service and private sector partners to the benefit of everyone in Dartford.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Initially, 1 thought that I could wholeheartedly support the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate). However, having listened to his speech, I have been dissuaded. I frequently argue that there should be staggered licensing laws. We see a huge number of people turned on to our village streets, town streets and city streets, in the case of Lichfield, at 11 o'clock at night. They often cause disturbance on a Friday and Saturday night. However, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's tone is completely right. What put me off what was not the hon. Gentleman's excellent preamble, in which he stated the reasons for having staggered licensing hours, but his subsequent proposal that the burden of proof should be shifted. He argued that it should be shifted to those who oppose staggered licensing hours, not to pubs applying for licensing hours to be extended.
The hon. Gentleman then used a series of phrases that are anathema to me. He said that an objection should be valid if it relates to a proposal not within the development criteria. He said that there should be better management and regulation, and talked about needs, rights and responsibilities in a town centre strategy. That sounded rather like new Labour speak. I support anything that would reduce the burden on town centre policing. Heaven knows, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who is listening patiently on the Front Bench has heard me speak about that on several occasions, and knows that I think

that it is wrong that there are only three or four police officers available in the city of Lichfield on a Friday or Saturday night.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): rose—

Mr. Fabricant: Although the Minister wishes to intervene now, there will be many opportunities for him to do so in a later debate on this very subject. I promise him that I will raise this issue again and give way to him then.
The sort of regulation that proposes controls and states that businesses should not be free to decide for themselves whether or not they should be open after 11 o'clock is patently wrong. If a pub were next door to housing and might cause a disturbance to elderly people late at night, of course it would be right for a local authority to say that it would be inappropriate for it to remain open. That is right and proper. However, the idea that there should be a town centre strategy has great dangers. For example, what if Dartford took one view and Sevenoaks a different one? What would be the result? Far from there being drift into a town centre—which, at least, would be a pedestrian drift—people might get into their cars at 11 o'clock at night and drive from Sevenoaks to Dartford, if Dartford took a liberal view, or vice versa, if Sevenoaks took a liberal view. That could lead to situations in which there was more drink-driving, which the whole House and every Member would deplore.
The Bill is well intentioned—as much new Labour legislation is well intentioned. However, when we get into the detail and start to read the fine print, we realise that it is impractical and destroys that which it is our main cause to preserve, namely the tranquillity and safety of our streets and cities late on Friday and Saturday nights. For that reason, I oppose the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Howard Stoate, Mr. Gordon Marsden, Dr. Phyllis Starkey, Ms Karen Buck, Mrs. Diana Organ and Dr. Desmond Turner.

LICENSED VICTUALLING (REGULATION OF HOURS)

Dr. Howard Stoate accordingly presented a Bill to permit licensing authorities to regulate the sale of alcohol from licensed premises after 11 o'clock at night in prescribed circumstances, in prescribed locations and on prescribed days: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March, and to be printed [Bill 35].

Vehicles (Crime) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Vehicles (Crime) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 18th December 2000:

Consideration and Third Reading

Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.

Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at half past Eight o'clock.

Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Consideration of Lords Amendments and further messages from the Lords

5. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; or
proceedings on any further messages from the Lords,

and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

The motion proposes that the remaining stages of the Bill should be completed this evening. The programme is supplemental to the one approved for the Committee stage, which finished, as planned, on 23 January.

In Committee, we generally had a serious debate. There was a good deal of constructive comment from the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. It is true that there were some contributions that I would regard as entirely self-indulgent, but it was a good Committee stage none the less. There was full discussion of all the relevant matters and the debates were completed within the time set by the previous programme motion.

There was only one occasion in Committee when time presented some difficulty. That arose from a filibuster by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and his hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), which led to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) being kept out of his debate.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification from you. If my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) or I had been filibustering, would not that have been out of order, and would not the Chairman of the Committee have ruled it so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. It is perfectly possible for hon. Members to seek to take extra time in dealing with a particular matter, and provided that what they say is not in breach of the Standing Orders of the House, they

are entitled to do so. Only when hon. Members stray out of order will they be corrected by the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I withdraw the word "filibuster" if it is offensive to you.
A large number of contributions from the hon. Members for Buckingham, for Lichfield and for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) and others were constructive and to the point, and helped to clarify matters in Committee. I observed that there were other contributions, particularly from the hon. Members for Buckingham and for Lichfield, that were less constructive and more time-passing in their approach. The effect of such exchanges was that, after one of our Committee sittings, the hon. Member for Colchester was full of ire, because he felt that he had not been able to make the points of substance that he had wanted to make in the debate.
With that one exception, it is fair to note that the debate in Committee took place within the time set by the programme motion; that in general it was positive; and that there were no divisions on issues of substance, although there were divisions on matters of process and procedure.
That has reinforced the view that programming is a good idea and has benefits for both Government and Opposition. For Bills of this size, with 45 clauses, it is particularly suitable. However, I acknowledge that there is an issue of principle across the House about whether programming is desirable.
If we had been confident that all hon. Members would honour the conventions and move the Bill forward, the programme motion might not have been necessary today. There are no outstanding matters of great substance. It is important that the new clauses, some tabled by the Opposition and some by the Government, should be debated. Those debates could be conducted in a positive spirit if we could rely on all hon. Members behaving as the House would expect, but we cannot. That is why the programme motion has been tabled.
In Committee, we focused on the clauses of greatest interest, which related to the substantial parts of the Bill and ensured that there was thorough scrutiny. That applied to the parts relating to regulation of the motor salvage industry and control of the supply of number plates, and also to the clauses that had already raised questions on Second Reading and in the media, such as the hypothecation of magistrates courts receipts to fund an increased number of safety cameras, and police access to motor insurance information.
I am delighted to say that although no amendments were passed in Committee, the Government have tried to address the Opposition's concerns by tabling a number of amendments to insert additional offence provisions in the Bill. Those concern the supplying of false information when a person applies to be registered as a motor salvage operator or number plate supplier. We have tabled those amendments in response to the debate in Committee. That demonstrates the consensual spirit that informed our debate there.
There are a number of drafting amendments as well, and some lesser amendments, mainly of a technical nature, but we are not introducing by way of Government amendment any major new issue of principle. One day


should therefore give us ample time to debate the remaining stages of the Bill. For those reasons, I commend the motion to the House.

5 pm

Mr. John Bercow: I am sorry to have to begin my remarks on a note of discord with the Government, but I am afraid that the position is simply stated. The tone of the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), is mellifluous, but his message is sadly one of menace. I am bound to say that he has a brass neck to hold Conservative Members—e referred specifically my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and I—esponsible for the tantrum in which the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) engaged towards the end of the Committee's proceedings.
I was saddened by the inability of the hon. Member for Colchester to speak for any significant time on an important occasion when there was material business to discuss, but Conservative Members were not responsible for that. Indeed, the record shows that we spoke for only six or seven minutes. The Minister of State should check his records if he doubts the veracity of my remarks. The inability of the hon. Member for Colchester to speak is attributable rather to the fact that the Government provided a wholly inadequate time scale within which we struggled, through our best endeavours, to satisfy our responsibility and the interests of our constituents.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that I did not use the word "tantrum", which is his word? When I described the behaviour of the hon. Member for Colchester, I said that I considered his position to be justified. I should like it to be clarified that the word "tantrum" is the hon. Gentleman's word and not mine.

Mr. Bercow: The Minister is notoriously sensitive about being misrepresented in any way, as we saw in Committee. Of course I am happy to confirm that he used the word "ire" and that, in accordance with the principles of the Lib-Lab pact, he said that the hon. Member for Colchester was justified in his outburst. He also said that the remarks of Opposition Members were not justified, although he rightly said that constructive debate occurred in Committee. I am happy to concede that he and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), have tabled a number of amendments that reflect the spirit and intention of those that the Opposition originally recommended.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is right to commend the Government for drafting amendments to reflect some of the aspects that the Opposition said were missing from the Bill. However, does he agree that although the amendments reflect our suggestions in principle, their detail is not precise and that we must oppose some of it?

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is right. He will have an opportunity to develop that argument further later in our proceedings.
The fact remains that it was palpably inadequate for the Bill to be considered for a time that fell just short of 23 hours. If I remember rightly, the deliberations occurred

between 9 and 23 January, in only 10 Standing Committee sittings, in which time the Committee had to consider no fewer than 45 clauses, 84 amendments and nine new clauses. If my arithmetic serves me correctly—for all his other failings, the Minister of State is a distinguished mathematician—that works out at roughly 10 minutes per issue; in other words, there were 10 minutes for each amendment, new clause and clause. That was unsatisfactory, but the current circumstances are even worse. With no fewer than 61 new clauses and amendments to consider, the Government now suggest that hon. Members should be expected to wrap up business before Third Reading commences at 8.30 pm. Frankly, that is unsatisfactory.
The argument has a number of strands that I want to develop. It is important that it should not be regarded as a dry, arid and irrelevant constitutional argument that is of no interest or relevance to the people whom hon. Members are elected to serve. On the contrary, it is profoundly significant, as it tells us much about the way in which the Government treat Parliament and the methods by which the Executive seek to downgrade and relegate the role of the legislature. Ultimately, it affects the capacity of the House to discharge its obligations effectively.

Mr. Bob Russell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if time is limited, it is vital to maximise it to good effect?

Mr. Bercow: I agree, but that argument is sometimes used to justify not having a proper debate on a programme motion. The hon. Gentleman's argument is honourable but mistaken, and it plays into the Government's hands. It is important to set out exactly what is wrong with the procedure.
First, I want to point to a sign of, at the very least, Government discourtesy. Paragraph 4 of the motion states:
Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
As I was not familiar with that aspect of the Sessional Orders, I made inquiries about it and discussed the matter with the Clerks. The Sessional Orders do not merely provide for, but are supposed to insist on, the creation of a Programming Committee, which comprises several individuals almost as of right and meets explicitly and exclusively to determine the allocation of time when considering a Bill on Report and on Third Reading.
The Government are inviting the House to disapply the Sessional Order and to substitute for a Committee and proper cross-party discussion a brief motion, which the Government intend to ram through on the payroll vote. If the Minister was sincere in being open minded about how the new procedure works, it is extraordinary that he, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope)—who, as a Whip, is currently silent, as he should be—made no attempt to communicate with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who was the Opposition Whip on the Standing Committee, with me or with any of my hon. Friends who served on the Committee about the time allocation for Report. Instead, they ignore the Sessional Orders and


devise a cheeky ruse whereby they can insist, through the payroll vote, on only a day's consideration of the remainder of the Bill.
We are witnessing as clear a demonstration as we could wish for of the arrogance, temerity and wilful disregard of the rights of the House, which are the hallmark of this overweening Labour Government. It is unacceptable to behave in that way and then to expect us to provide results.
Secondly, as the Minister knows, the Secretary of State for Health made an important statement today. I do not detract from its significance or underestimate hon. Members' interest in its contents. I accept that it was important. However, the Minister and the Government Whip knew that we were due to consider 61 new clauses and amendments today, yet the Government decided to make the statement, thus deliberately and calculatedly limiting the time available for debate on Report. I therefore appeal to hon. Members—even those who might be described as part-time opponents of the Government, namely Liberal Democrat Members—to recognise that such behaviour is unfair and militates against the effective discharge by the House of its duty as the proper body for scrutinising Bills.
I have mentioned the 61 new clauses and amendments. I emphasise that number so that hon. Members and those listening to our proceedings are aware that they have not all been tabled by the Opposition. Partly in response to our representations in Committee, and partly through initiatives taken on their own account, the Government have tabled no fewer than 39 of the 61 new clauses and amendments. A large proportion of the new proposals has, therefore, come from the Government.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would formally concede that many of the amendments and new clauses directly respond to matters raised in Committee, in pursuit of commitments that I and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions my hon. Friend the member for Steatham (Mr. Hill) made to the Committee following the good, constructive points raised in debates there.

Mr. Bercow: I certainly accept that the amendments and new clauses have been tabled in response to concerns that we have expressed, but I fear what the Minister seems to regard as the corollary of his own point. He seems to think that the corollary of the fact that the Government's intentions in tabling the new clauses and amendments are good is that it is somehow less incumbent on the rest of the House to make a judgment on the validity of those new clauses and amendments.
I hope that I shall not hear such a response from the Minister's lips, but I recall a number of debates on Report in which a Minister has had the audacity to say to an interested Back Bencher seeking to intervene, "No, I shall not give way to the hon. Member because he"—or she—"did not serve on the Standing Committee." It is incumbent on Ministers to recognise that the purpose of this exercise is for the Standing Committee's deliberations to be reported to, and subjected to the assessment of, this House. That is what it is all about.
Of course, the Minister is justified in tabling new clauses and amendments and he has done so at least partly in response to the representations and advocacy of the

Opposition in Committee. However, that does not divest us of our responsibility fully to consider their contents. Although the Minister's intentions are good, it is not clear that the precise wording, form and likely effect of the new clauses and amendments will necessarily commend themselves to all hon. Members.

Mr. Clarke: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the need for debate on the proposals—indeed, for debate by hon. Members who were not members of the Standing Committee. I am grateful to him for accepting my intervention, and I want to ensure that he does not feel that the Government are in some way behaving wrongly in tabling amendments for consideration by the House. The reason that we tabled them was precisely to respond to concerns raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.

Mr. Bercow: That is true. However, so far I have—in characteristic fashion, as my hon. Friends will understand—been a bit soft and a bit generous towards the Minister. I am very lucky indeed—I count my blessings—that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has not yet joined us. If he were to do so, I would probably be chastised severely for the rather wimpish approach that I have hitherto adopted.
Although the Minister's intentions are good, some of the amendments should never have been necessary in the first place. It beggars belief that a distinguished mathematician, described by Mr. John Kampfner in The Guardian newspaper—where else?—as a likely future leader of the Labour party, could be the Minister in charge of a Bill that came before the Committee with no provisions for an offence of falsely seeking to register as a motor salvage operator or a registration plate supplier.
Those omissions seem to be an example of the most extraordinary negligence on the part of the Government. Those were simple points that they should have anticipated. Indeed, they were simple and obvious points that would probably have been described by the late Enoch Powell as so blindingly obvious that only an extraordinarily clever person could have failed to see them. It is no good the Minister pleading for brownie points from me and asking for a belated Christmas present. It is no good his saying what a good, democratic fellow he has been because he has tabled amendments that should satisfy the appetite of Conservative Members.
The Minister is a very important, very distinguished, very senior and very respected fellow with very many commitments. He is very ambitious and has a very full diary. We should not need to be considering the amendments now. Had he been willing to lose a bit of face—and to pay a genuine and deserved tribute to my hon. Friends and me—by accepting the original wording of our amendments, which pointed up the lacunae in the Bill and remedied its deficiencies, it would not now be necessary for him to expect us to take an average of four minutes to debate each amendment while we go at a whistle-stop pace through the Report stage of the Bill.
I do not know what the Minister's commitments are. When we were in the Programming Sub-Committee, he got very testy and started looking at what looked like a little diary card in front of him because I had developed a couple of points at reasonable length and asked some


questions. It turned out that he was in danger of missing his pre-prandial drink. That was not a matter of concern to me.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on that point. I shall take this opportunity to ask him whether he would concede that, in the Programming Sub-Committee, he proposed no changes of substance to the order of consideration of the Bill, or to the amount of time for debate within the time available. The only changes that he suggested related to the total length of consideration. He proposed none at all on the detailed proceedings.

Mr. Bercow: The Minister makes a point that is both right and staggeringly irrelevant. This is where he and I disagree. He is absolutely right to say that I was not remotely concerned to propose a change to the order of consideration of the clauses. He has in mind such monumental, nationwide issues of great popular moment as whether we should consider clauses 16 to 30 first, as the Government proposed, or whether we should follow the chronological sequence of the Bill. I admit that I did not, and do not, give a tinker's cuss about the order in which those matters were considered in Standing Committee.
My point is that it is no good the Minister arguing about the order in which we eat our meal, if the meal itself is not large enough. I am a little chap, but that does not mean that I do not have a reasonable appetite. When I was elected as the Member of Parliament for Buckingham, I took it as my responsibility to subject the Government to scrutiny regularly, consistently and in detail. That is what my constituents expect me and my hon. Friends to accomplish. The fact is that 23 hours were not sufficient.
I hope that the Minister will not dispute that, on the occasion to which he has just referred, I proposed that there should have been 32 hours' consideration in Committee rather than 23 hours. That was a modest proposal, and I am glad that he is not disputing that I made it. One of our objections—as you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a keen student of these matters—is that the conduct of the Programming Sub-Committee was disgraceful. It took place in private; no minute was taken; nor was a verbatim account provided. Subsequently, as I pointed out in a question earlier this afternoon to the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, there was an unresolved dispute between us as to who said what, when and to whom. That dispute will never be resolved, however long we pursue it, because there is no account of it.

Mr. Clarke: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge here in the House—as he did in Committee—that the responsibility for the conduct of the Committee and the rules under which it takes place are a matter for the Chair, not for the Government of the day. We honoured and supported the decisions of the Chairman at that time.

Mr. Bercow: There are two very unattractive features about the Government, and they necessitate the House taking the maximum time for consideration and on Report. One is the tendency to hide behind public servants—that is, Departmental officials. I shall not dilate on that subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because if I were to do so I might incur your wrath, and that is not something that any self-respecting Member of Parliament would willingly countenance.

Mr. Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman has done so once or twice before.

Mr. Bercow: I may have done so inadvertently.
I have said that the Minister tends to take refuge behind civil servants. [Interruption.] The Minister asks me to withdraw that comment, and of course I do so. He is getting very excited. I know that he is very ambitious, has many commitments and wants to fulfil all kinds of future desires. I do not want to embarrass him by going into too much detail about that.
The Minister may not seek to hide behind the cloak of official approval, but many Ministers seek the imprimatur of public servants for decisions that are ultimately their own responsibility—decisions that it is their job to defend before Parliament.
Ministers often say, "Ah, that is a matter for the Chair." I have repeatedly made the point to the Minister that it would have been perfectly possible for him specifically to recommend that the Programming Sub-Committee meet in public and that minutes be taken. It would also have been possible for him either to recommend or to agree to recommend lengthier consideration. That is the significant point.
We have many important issues to discuss, such as penalties and offences. I have referred to one example of an offence that the Government had not apparently considered in the first place, which they now propose to introduce—an attempt falsely to register as a motor salvage operator or registration plate supplier—and it is necessary to scrutinise and debate that properly this evening. There is also the important but vexed question of the use of court receipts to finance a major roll-out of speed cameras across the country.
Whatever the politically correct prejudices of Ministers and their Back Benchers, that issue causes considerable disquiet in my constituency and in the constituencies of a number of my hon. Friends. Such matters need to be debated not only by members of the Committee, although I am delighted that they have faithfully turned out today, but by other Members of the House. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who might seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the epitome of the traditional parliamentarian. He believes in debate, scrutiny and holding Ministers responsible for their decisions. While the Minister is busily preoccupied with his ascent of the greasy pole, my hon. Friend is busily preoccupied with the effective and persistent representation of the people of Aldridge-Brownhills. He does that by contributing on issues of public importance that will have an on-going impact on the people whom he is elected to represent.
The crucial issue of police powers is of no apparent interest to the new Stalinists on the Labour Benches. As a Conservative libertarian—I am proud of that description or epithet—I happen to be concerned about the number of occasions on which police officers or other representatives of authority can gain access either to business premises or private property to pursue their inquiries. The Government suggest that registered motor salvage operators or registered registration plate suppliers should be susceptible to unannounced visits—without even the decency of a warrant—by police constables or other representatives of authority. However, the premises of those who are not registered plate suppliers or salvage


operators, but who are suspected of unlawful or even criminal activity, can be entered and inspected only if the police or other representatives of authority have secured a warrant.
My hon. Friends and I have argued on several occasions that that inequality of treatment and lack of symmetry—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to have strayed from the terms of the motion. He has discussed the respective merits of hon. Members and their perspicacity and is now discussing the substance of the Bill. However, the time for that has not yet arrived, so he should confine himself strictly to the terms of the motion. I hope that he will not engage in further repetition.

Mr. Bercow: I certainly will not engage in repetition—and far be it from me ever to disobey your instructions, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Greg Pope: Tedious repetition.

Mr. Bercow: I have not engaged in that at all and I challenge the hon. Gentleman to provide a single example of my making the same point twice. I have not done so and do not intend to do so. As always, I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for returning me to the straight and narrow.
The point that I was trying to make—as a modest fellow, I am happy to concede that I was obviously making it very inadequately—is that precisely because these matters are contentious and precisely because there has not yet been a proper opportunity for Members of the House who were not members of the Committee to debate them, it is important that there should be adequate time to do so.
I give another example—fees and charges—not because I want to dilate on that, but because it is an example of an important subject, which hon. Members should have more time to debate. An extraordinary series of exchanges took place in Committee. My hon. Friends and I proposed an amendment that would have ensured that the Government could not impose stealth taxes, but could levy charges such, and only such, as to recover the administrative costs incurred. The Minister quibbled about the terms and suggested that the clause as it stood was preferable to the wording that we recommended. However, when Ministers were challenged to guarantee beyond doubt that a profit to the Exchequer would never be involved, they retreated into waffle and obfuscation. Those matters need to be properly debated tonight.
The central point is that it is unreasonable—simply and plainly unreasonable—for Ministers to expect 61 new clauses and amendments to be intelligently and comprehensively debated in only three hours. Now, I am not the very distinguished and upmarket mathematician that is the Minister. Nevertheless, I scraped through the O-level. Three hours is 180 minutes, so it is clear what considering 61 new clauses and amendments in 180 minutes means: fewer than three minutes per new clause or—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. To my certain knowledge, the hon. Gentleman has repeated himself twice in half a minute. He has also repeated an argument that he has already used in his 26-minute speech.

Mr. Bercow: Well, you have slapped my wrist, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I bow to your authority and the discipline that you have imposed. I apologise, but my hon. Friends are clear about our objection. The Government are trying to ram through too much in too little time with too few opportunities for hon. Members to voice their concerns. That is not acceptable.
If the Minister is so confident of the robustness of his case and so convinced that the Government are being fair in their proposed allocation of time, why have neither he nor either of his hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench had the courtesy to consult through the usual channels about the apportionment of time? The fact is that they did not consult on either the amount of time that they proposed to allocate or its proposed distribution on Report and Third Reading. I must emphasise that, to me, that is unacceptable.

Mr. Pope: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten our conversation behind the Speaker's Chair last week?

Mr. Bercow: No, I have not. The hon. Gentleman, who is a diligent Whip, has started to dig his own grave and I am afraid that I must throw the earth in to fill it. It is certainly true that he approached me. He wanted to established whether I was content with a day's consideration and it was pretty clear to him that I was not. My response was twofold. First, it was incumbent on him to go through the usual channels and speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk, because that is the way that business is done. Secondly, the time needed—based on the proposals that the Government themselves would produce—was crucial. I must emphasise that.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is decent and fair-minded enough to acknowledge that I said to him, "It depends how many new clauses and amendments the Government choose to put to the House." At that stage, the hon. Gentleman, who was kept in the dark by his very senior, very distinguished and very ambitious Minister, was not in a position to advise me about what the Government intended.
We face a strange situation as we consider the allocation of time. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk and I were not aware of what the Government would propose for the simple reason that we were not the proposers and they would not tell us what they had in mind. Inevitably, as the Opposition in the dark, we were in a state of ignorance. The situation on the Government side resulted in this pitifully inadequate allocation of time: the Minister apparently knew what he had in mind, but the hon. Member for Hyndburn, the Government Whip, did not.
If the Minister and the hon. Member for Hyndburn do not communicate about these matters, it is their problem, but there is no reason why the rights of the House should be imperilled or, indeed, ultimately trampled, as a result of such a pitiful failure of communication.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bercow: Yes, for the last time.

Mr. Clarke: First, there is no difference relating either to information or to knowledge between my hon. Friend and me. Secondly, I am glad the hon. Gentleman had the grace to concede that there was a consultation, and that a meeting took place. Thirdly, I had a similar conversation with the hon. Gentleman before the Programming Sub-Committee considered the Committee stage, and received a similar response to that described by him. I have to say that I think it very difficult to take him seriously, in terms of the possibility of engaging in a serious discussion of these matters.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am anxious to ensure that a balanced debate takes place. I know that others wish to speak, and I suggest that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) limit his remarks.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall follow it. In any event, it is difficult to reply to what the Minister said, because it was so vague as to border on the opaque. Whether he meant that I just chuckled at him when he spoke to me, or whether he suggested for a moment that I was guilty of tergiversation—that I said one thing on one occasion, and subsequently changed my mind—I know not. The fact is, however, that there was not proper conversation between the Minister and the hon. Member for Hyndburn. The fact is that either the hon. Member for Hyndburn did not know how many new clauses or amendments the Government intended to table, or, if he did know, he failed to divulge the information to me. And the fact still is that, despite that non-communication, based on either secretiveness or lack of knowledge, the hon. Gentleman had the cheek to expect me to agree to a circumscription of the rights of the Opposition in particular, and of the House in general. That is unacceptable.
No amount of dancing on the head of a pin by the Minister will change the fact that the Government have treated the House with disdain, indifference and contempt. The allocation of time is unsatisfactory: this is not a proper way in which to do business. I am sorry that there are too many part-timers who do not take their legislative responsibilities seriously. My hon. Friends and I do, and I know that, in particular, traditionalist Labour Back Benchers take those responsibilities extremely seriously. The many Members who take them seriously and who share my view that the time allocated is inadequate will doubtless wish to register their concerns.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I shall be extremely brief, and perhaps demonstrate to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that it is possible to make points succinctly, and in a short time.
I have served on a wide range of Standing Committees, and will draw on that experience to illustrate my view not only that there was sufficient time in Committee, but that there is plenty of time for us to deal with substantive arguments—if there are any—this evening.
As you have observed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there has been an element of repetition. In Committee, I heard the arguments about pieces in The Guardian six, eight or even nine times. If the hon. Member for Buckingham were to confine himself to substantive issues, I am sure that the time allocated would be sufficient.
If hon. Members look at the report of the Committee's first sitting, they will see that the hon. Gentleman took up more than half the first 38 columns. If they then go through the record line by line, deleting references to The Guardian, spider bites and similar trivia outside the scope of the Bill, they will note that the hon. Gentleman effectively occupied a reasonable proportion of the debate; but it is a different matter when we start to add all the trivia. For instance, the hon. Gentleman takes up eight and a half out of 10 columns in the debate on clause 17.
The Bill deals with important issues. I want adequate time tonight to deal with clause 37, which I sought to amend in Committee. Coincidentally, the hon. Member for Buckingham mentioned the constituency of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). There are extremely effective speed cameras throughout the heart of that constituency—at least, I think it must be that constituency—along the A5.
Such issues are important, and we must deal with the substance of them. We can only do so, however, if Members on both sides of the House confine their remarks to what is relevant—although I would point out that the Committee stage ended before the scheduled time.

Mr. David Chidgey: As only about four minutes remain, I shall keep my remarks as brief as possible so that others can speak if they want to.
The Minister is right to say that the Committee stage was, in the main, even-tempered and intellectually engaged with the issues. Much of the Committee's progress through the clauses before it was due to the fact that he and his colleagues offered to table amendments addressing the points that we had made. It is true that amendments have been tabled, but we now have less than three and a half hours in which to discuss them—significantly less than the three minutes per amendment mentioned by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Moveover, if Divisions took place we would have even less time.
I must register my concern. A number of important issues were, to a degree, sidelined in Committee while we waited for further information from the Government, and further amendment in recognition of the points we had raised. I fear that in the time available we shall not be able to deal with those issues properly, and shall not have an opportunity to be reassured by the Minister that the amendments are sound.
It is traditional for us to suffer—well, not suffer in this case; but we must recognise that statements from Ministers tend to precede debates such as this. I find it a little strange, however, that an hour and a half of our short time has been allocated to Third Reading, given that Third Reading tends to feature a repetition of what has gone before and to give some Members an opportunity merely to exercise their vocal cords. I would far prefer much of the time to be spent debating amendments and new clauses.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Minister is right to say that Conservative Members dominated the Committee's proceedings. I was not present for the first week because I was unwell—any further talk of spiders and bites and anti-venom is not necessary now—but I was there for most of the time, and I can say that my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and I made powerful points. So powerful were those points that the Government have now adopted them, because they related to glaring omissions at the time—so glaring, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said just now, that they staggered the imagination.
The Bill says that it is unlawful not to provide information, or to provide information that is wrong. To include such a provision, and then not to include provision for a penalty for such an omission, is extraordinary, but it is typical of this Government and their arrogance—

It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 168.

Division No. 91]
[5.39 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Caplin, Ivor


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Casale, Roger


Ainger, Nick
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Chaytor, David


Allen, Graham
Chisholm, Malcolm


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clapham, Michael


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clark, Dr Lynda


Ashton, Joe
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Austin, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bailey, Adrian
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Banks, Tony
Clwyd, Ann


Barnes, Harry
Coaker, Vernon


Barron, Kevin
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Cohen, Harry


Beard, Nigel
Colman, Tony


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Begg, Miss Anne
Cooper, Yvette


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Corbett, Robin


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Corston, Jean


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cousins, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Cox, Tom


Benton, Joe
Cranston, Ross


Bermingham, Gerald
Crausby, David


Best, Harold
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Betts, Clive
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blackman, Liz
Cummings, John


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack


Blizzard, Bob
(Copeland)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dalyell, Tam


Bradshaw, Ben
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Darvill, Keith


Buck, Ms Karen
Davidson, Ian


Burden, Richard
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Burgon, Colin
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
(B'ham Hodge H)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Denham, John


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Doran, Frank


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Dowd, Jim


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Drown, Ms Julia


Cann, Jamie
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth





Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kidney, David


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Edwards, Huw
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Efford, Clive
Kingham, Ms Tess


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Ennis, Jeff
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Etherington, Bill
Lammy, David


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lepper, David


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Leslie, Christopher


Flint, Caroline
Levitt, Tom


Flynn, Paul
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Follett, Barbara
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lock, David


Foulkes, George
Love, Andrew


Fyfe, Maria
McAvoy, Thomas


Galloway, George
McCabe, Steve


Gapes, Mike
McDonagh, Siobhain


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Macdonald, Calum


Gerrard, Neil
McDonnell, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
McFall, John


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Godman, Dr Norman A
McIsaac, Shona


Godsiff, Roger
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Goggins, Paul
Mackinlay, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mallaber, Judy


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Martlew, Eric


Hanson, David
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Healey, John
Meale, Alan


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Merron, Gillian


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hendrick, Mark
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hepburn, Stephen
Miller, Andrew


Heppell, John
Mitchell, Austin


Hesford, Stephen
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hill, Keith
Morley, Elliot


Hinchliffe, David
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle


Hodge, Ms Margaret
(B'ham Yardley)


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mountford, Kali


Hope, Phil
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mudie, George


Howells, Dr Kim
Mullin, Chris


Hoyle, Lindsay
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hurst Alan
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hutton, John
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Hara, Eddie


Illsley, Eric
Olner, Bill


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
O'Neill, Martin


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jamieson, David
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Pearson, Ian


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Plaskitt, James


Joyce, Eric
Pond, Chris


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pope, Greg


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pound, Stephen


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prosser, Gwyn


Khabra, Piara S
Purchase, Ken






Quinn, Lawrie
Stoate, Dr Howard


Rapson, Syd
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Raynsford, Nick
Stringer, Graham


Robertson, John
Stuart, Ms Gisela


(Glasgow Anniesland)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Rogers, Allan
(Dewsbury)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Rooney, Terry
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Temple—Morris, Peter


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Roy, Frank
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ruane, Chris
Timms, Stephen


Ruddock, Joan
Tipping, Paddy


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Todd, Mark


Ryan, Ms Joan
Touhig, Don


Salmond, Alex
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Salter, Martin
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Savidge, Malcolm
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sedgemore, Brian
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Shaw, Jonathan
Tynan, Bill


Sheerman, Barry
Walley, Ms Joan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Ward, Ms Claire


Shipley, Ms Debra
Wareing, Robert N


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Watts, David


Singh, Marsha
White, Brian


Skinner, Dennis
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
(Swansea W)


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Winnick, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Snape, Peter
Wood, Mike


Soley, Clive
Woodward, Shaun


Southworth, Ms Helen
Woolas, Phil


Spellar, John
Worthington, Tony


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wray, James


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Steinberg, Gerry
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Stevenson, George



Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Mr. David Clelland and Mr. Tony McNulty.


Stinchcombe, Paul
 




NOES


Allan, Richard
Burstow, Paul


Amess, David
Cash, William


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
(Chipping Barnet)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Chidgey, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clappison, James


Baker, Norman
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Baldry, Tony
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth


Ballard, Jackie
(Rushcliffe)


Beggs, Roy
Collins, Tim


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cotter, Brian


Bercow, John
Cran, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Blunt, Crispin
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Body, Sir Richard
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Duncan, Alan


Brady, Graham
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brake, Tom
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brand, Dr Peter
Evans, Nigel


Brazier, Julian
Faber, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fabricant, Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fallon, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fearn, Ronnie


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Flight, Howard


Burnett, John
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Burns, Simon
Foster, Don (Bath)





Fraser, Christopher
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Gale, Roger
Öpik, Lembit


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Ottaway, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Page, Richard


Gidley, Sandra
Paice, James


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Pickles, Eric


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Green, Damian
Prior, David


Greenway, John
Randall, John


Grieve, Dominic
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Rendel, David


Hammond, Philip
Robathan, Andrew


Harris, Dr Evan
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Harvey, Nick
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Hawkins, Nick
Ruffley, David


Hayes, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Heald, Oliver
St Aubyn, Nick


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Sanders, Adrian


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Shepherd, Richard


Horam, John
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Soames, Nicholas


Hunter, Andrew
Spicer, Sir Michael


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Spring, Richard


Jenkin, Bernard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles
Streeter, Gary


(Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Stunell, Andrew


Key, Robert
Swayne, Desmond


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Syms, Robert


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Lansley, Andrew
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Leigh, Edward
Townend, John


Letwin, Oliver
Tredinnick, David


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Trend, Michael


Lidington, David
Tyler, Paul


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tyrie, Andrew


Livsey, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Walter, Robert


Llwyd, Elfyn
Waterson, Nigel


Loughton, Tim
Webb, Steve


Luff, Peter
Wells, Bowen


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Wilkinson, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Willetts, David


Madel, Sir David
Willis, Phil


Malins, Humfrey
Wilshire, David


Maples, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Mates, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Yeo, Tim


Moore, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Moss, Malcolm



Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Noes:


Norman, Archie
Mr. Keith Simpson and Mr. James Gray.


Oaten, Mark

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Vehicles (Crime) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 18th December 2000:

Consideration and Third Reading

1. Proceedings on Consideration and Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.

2. Proceedings n Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at half past Eight o' clock.

Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Consideration of Lords Amendments and further messages from the Lords

Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; or
proceedings on any further messages from the Lords,

and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

Orders of the Day — Vehicles (Crime) Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1

OFFENCE OF MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS

`.—(1) A person who, in making an application to be registered in the register of a local authority or to renew his registration in such a register—

(a) makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular; or
(b) recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular,

shall be guilty of an offence and, subject to subsection (2), liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale if—

(a) any previous application of his to the local authority concerned for registration or renewal of registration was refused under section 3(3); or
(b) previous registration of his in the register of the local authority concerned was cancelled under section 4(1).'.—[Mr. Hill.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 37, in clause 3, page 3, line 21, at end insert—
'( ) Any person who knowingly makes a false application under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.
Government amendments Nos. 1 and 4 to 6.
Amendment No. 40, in clause 18, page 10, line 25, at end insert—
'( ) Any person who knowingly makes a false application under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.
Government amendments Nos. 7 to 14.
Amendment No. 41, in clause 26, page 14, line 16, leave out "3" and insert "5".
Government amendments Nos. 15 to 17.
Amendment No. 42, in clause 27, page 14, line 34, leave out "4" and insert "5".

Mr. Hill: Discussion in Committee—prompted primarily by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—showed that there was a gap in the range of offences created by clauses 10 and 18, and I agreed to consider the matter further. I am happy to designate new clause 1 and the associated amendments as "the Buckingham amendments".
Clauses 10 and 18 created offences of failing to notify the local authority or the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of various changes, but they did not make it an offence to make a false statement in an application for registration, or for renewal of registration. New clause 1 plugs the gap for salvage operators by making it an offence to make a false statement that is material to the application.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: How was it that civil servants in the Minister's Department, when they scrutinised the Bill before it reached the House, failed to spot something that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) managed to spot? Should not the Minister make an apology to my hon. Friend?

Mr. Hill: I hardly think that an apology is in order. I fully recognise that there was an oversight in the drafting. We are extremely grateful to the Opposition, and to the hon. Member for Buckingham specifically, for drawing our attention to the lacuna in the Bill that the new clause is intended to fill.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I thank the Minister for his generosity in calling the new clause the Buckingham amendment. However, does not he agree that, more scrutiny, with other lacunae might have been spotted? Can he guarantee that there are no other lacunae that might have been spotted had more scrutiny time been made available?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest to the House that, in the context of this debate, we should stick to the lacuna that is before us.

Mr. Hill: I am delighted to deal with this particular lacuna, which we debated at some length in Committee. We dealt with a wide range of matters in Committee. We debated all the amendments that had been tabled, and in fact finished early. All the issues that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members wanted to raise were covered more than adequately in Committee, and the time provided was more than adequate for the purpose.
The offence that I described is punishable by a fine at level 3—that is, £1,000—in line with the penalties for the other clause 10 offences. However, we believe that a higher penalty is appropriate for those who make false statements when they have previously had an application refused—or registration cancelled—on the grounds that they were not "fit and proper" persons.
Such people have been through the procedures before and know what is required. They know that if they applied in their own right, their application would not be successful. We must not allow them to think that an attempt to deceive the local authority is less risky than trading while unregistered. The penalty for trading while unregistered is set at level 5—that is, £5,000-and new clause 1 provides for the same penalty to apply to those caught by subsection (2).
Government amendment No. 1 qualifies the offence in clause 10(1), so that any change affecting the accuracy of the information submitted with an application must be "material". That makes it consistent with new clause 1. It is likely that a wide range of information will be submitted with applications, and we do not want the

offence to apply to inaccuracies that will not weigh in the balance when local authorities are making decisions. Such inaccuracies might include, for example, mistakes in the spelling of names or addresses. A similar amendment, Government amendment No. 14, has been proposed for the number plate scheme.
Government amendments Nos. 4 to 9 and Government amendment No. 12, which relate to clause 18, on the application for registration for registration plate suppliers, have a similar effect to the changes proposed for salvage operators. We propose to introduce a new offence, with a level 3 fine, of either knowingly or recklessly making a false statement when applying for registration.
A business convicted of making a false statement might not be considered in some cases to have made a valid registration, so the option of suspension from the register might not be open to the court. We therefore propose to give the court the power to impose a period of up to five years during which such a business will be barred from making a false application.
We also want to address the situation in which a business that has been suspended from the register or debarred from making a further application attempts to reapply before the relevant period has elapsed.

Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for his kind remarks of a few moments ago. I do not want to be pedantic, but I do want to be precise. The hon. Gentleman said that it would be possible under the new arrangements to prevent someone from making a false application for a period of five years. I think that the hon. Gentleman meant to say a further false application.

Mr. Hill: To the extent that the applicant has already been barred or suspended from the register, an offence has been committed. I certainly accept the rephrasing of the expression along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman. However, this is a somewhat convoluted way of dealing with the issue. We have tussled hard to find an appropriate way forward on the matter. It is a convoluted form; nevertheless, it serves to achieve the desired effect.
As I was saying, this may involve a deliberate attempt to deceive the registration authority by providing false details. In line with the proposals for salvage operators, we are proposing a level 5 fine. This offence is more serious than simply providing false information, and ranks alongside the offence of trading while unregistered.
Government amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 13 relate to clause 19, which provides that a suspension from the register of number plate suppliers imposed by a magistrates court should not have effect until the time for appealing to the Crown court runs out. This is a sensible provision, because suspension from the register means that it will no longer be possible for someone to trade legally as a number plate supplier and that should not occur while there is still the possibility of a successful appeal.
There are two ways of dealing with an adverse decision of the magistrates court. One is to appeal to the Crown court; the other is to state a case on a point of law to the High Court. This is done when the magistrates court has exceeded its powers or seriously erred in law. The procedure should be used only in exceptional circumstances; it is, indeed, seldom used. Nevertheless, the legislation must allow for such circumstances.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 13 apply the same provision as on appeals to circumstances where a case is stated to the High Court.
Amendment No. 11 places a statutory duty on the courts to notify the DVLA when a registration is suspended or a business is ordered not to make another application for a specified period following a conviction for making a false statement. Unless the amendment is made, there will be no mechanism in law for notification from the courts. It is essential that the courts provide the DVLA with this information so that the register can be amended accordingly.
The purpose of amendments Nos. 15 to 17 is to describe the new offence relating to the sale of counterfeit plates more accurately, and to introduce a defence. The amendments relate to clause 27, which sets out to address two scenarios. The first is when defective number plates are sold to an unwitting customer. The second deals with the problem of customising number plates to a customer's specifications. It is already an offence under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 to display such a number plate, but many suppliers are happy to sell such plates and let the motorist take the risk of being caught. We want to deter that practice. It is right, however, that the defence should be available to cover any genuine cases in which the defect was slight and the supplier could prove he did not know of the defect and was not reckless with regard to the defect. In the light of those observations, I commend the Government amendments to the House.
I fear that I must resist Opposition amendments Nos. 37, 40, 41 and 42,. Let me explain why. Amendments Nos. 37 and 40 would make it an offence, punishable by a fine of up to £5,000, knowingly to make a false application for entry in the register of motor salvage operators or number plate suppliers. The Bill requires a motor salvage operator to make an application for registration. It does not, however, address the situation in which someone makes a false declaration as part of that application.
We appreciate the motivation behind the amendments. Indeed, the same proposals in Committee prompted us to table new clause 1, the related amendments to part I, amendment No. 4 and the related amendments to clause 18.

Mr. Oliver Heald: The crucial difference between the Opposition's amendments and the Government's new clause is that, whereas under the Government's proposals the offence occurs when someone either knowingly or recklessly makes a false statement, under the Opposition's proposals, the offence is committed when it is done knowingly, but not in circumstances of recklessness. Why does the Minister believe that recklessness should be included in the offence? What sort of circumstances does he think would be covered? How would he deal with the point made by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), when I proposed that recklessness should be imported into the offence under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000? He said that to import recklessness would introduce great

complexity, legal technicalities and difficulties to the situation. How would the Under-Secretary deal with that point in this context?

Mr. Hill: I hope to come on to those points and set out the Government's objections in the course of my remarks.
We prefer the Government amendments chiefly because, unlike the others, they draw a worthwhile distinction between a false application per se and deception attempted by an applicant whose previous registration has been cancelled or refused. We consider the latter more serious, and deserving of a higher maximum penalty.
Amendment No. 41 relates to the registration of number plate suppliers. It seeks to increase the level of the fine for failure to notify a change of particulars from a level 4 fine of £2,500 to a level 5 fine of £5,000. We believe that that lacks a sense of proportion. One must compare the various offences in the Bill and give each its due weight. Is a failure to notify the DVLA of a change of address as serious as failure to register altogether? We do not think so. Our view is that the two cannot be treated in the same way. To carry on a business while unregistered is to flout the core purpose of the legislation. It cannot be compared with a failure to keep the DVLA updated in every material detail.

Mr. Bercow: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he is, no doubt inadvertently, giving the impression that the offence of failing to communicate a new address to the DVLA is somehow trifling. Will he, by contrast, accept that it would not be at all trifling if a change of business premises was not notified to the DVLA, so that, as far as that central authority was concerned, the registered salvage operator or registration plate supplier might just as well not be registered at all?

Mr. Hill: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but an element of intention must be taken into account in this context. A bona fide supplier has obviously gone through the registration process, thereby demonstrating his integrity and acceptability as a supplier, but he may inadvertently fall into the trap of failing to convey a change of address in due course. That is a problem—but although it is an offence, it is not deeply serious and certainly falls into the category of possible accident rather than malevolence. On those grounds, we think that a worthwhile distinction can be made in the degree of seriousness of the offence. I am sure that we can return to those matters in due course.
Like amendment No. 41, amendment No. 42 treats an offence more gravely than is warranted. The offence under clause 27 is designed to deal with the practice of selling number plates where the characters are so arranged as to make them resemble a personal name or other word that might mean something to the owner.
The Government want to stop that practice, as it can make it difficult for cameras and witnesses to read number plates. That is already an offence, punishable by a level 3 fine of £1,000. However, we do not believe that selling a plate with the numbers "1" and "3" placed close together to look like a "B" is as serious as failure to register as a registration plate supplier, which, of course, attracts a level 5 fine.
In the light of those reasonable objections, I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) will feel able to withdraw the amendments.

Mr. Heald: My question was obviously quite difficult as the Under-Secretary completely failed to address it, despite saying that he would do so.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on the way in which he has taken up the issue and brought it to a conclusion—which, even if it is not not an entirely satisfactory one, is miles better than what preceded it. My hon. Friend identified the serious risk of people working illegally as motor salvage operators trying to obtain registration by giving false details. In almost every walk of crime, whenever there is an opportunity to make money by using false particulars to obtain the imprimatur of the state—the necessary licences or documentation—there are always cases of false representation. That is true in every field of crime; for example, the use of false identities to claim benefits or for the abuse of credit cards. It is surprising that the Government failed to identify that risk.
If the offence had not been created, gangs would have tried to obtain several registrations using false materials and representations. They would have been able to enter the system; they would have been seen as clean operators and would have been able to salvage vehicles, break them up and sell the parts. My hon. Friend has done an invaluable service; the amendments should indeed be known as the Buckingham amendments. The whole House owes my hon. Friend a debt, and I was pleased that the Government were able to acknowledge that.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary was rather shocked when that point was made. He said:
Although I shall resist the new clause, I shall resist it in an extremely qualified fashion."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 January 2001; c. 66.]
He was obviously in retreat before the logic of my hon. Friend. However, that is no bad thing; it is good for Ministers to retreat when good points are made. They can then make better proposals on Report. The Minister of State, Home Office will be doing a good deal of that when we consider the Criminal Justice and Police Bill in Committee next week.
The creation of an offence of knowingly or recklessly making a false statement in registering as a motor salvage operator, instead of the provision that we proposed—that it should be an offence when a false application is made knowingly—begs the question: why do the Government believe that the words "knowingly or recklessly" are the way to go?
There is a problem with the use of the word "recklessness", as the Minister of State pointed out to me during our discussions on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, which included an offence of unlawfully intercepting a communication. Such an offence could only be committed by the authorities—or was most likely to be. I suggested that, if the authorities were to use their powers and facilities to intercept the communications of private citizens, it was wrong if the offence was only that they did so knowingly because, as servants of the state, they should be guilty if they acted recklessly.
6.15 pm
The forces of the state—the authorities—in this country do an excellent job, but we do not want them to be able to act recklessly without redress. The Minister replied that we could not make such a provision because the law on

recklessness is so complex that no one really understands it, and the Court of Appeal had made contradictory decisions on it. I ventured to suggest that the definition of "recklessness" was a simple matter. If there is a clearly identifiable risk that damage would result from particular conduct and if, having recognised that risk, people engage in that conduct, they are reckless. However, the Minister said that that was not the only definition and cited various cases. I was so concerned at the Minister's reply that I asked that the Attorney-General attend our Committee to give us a proper legal definition. I did not agree with the Minister.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. People who may be brought before the courts for making a false statement "recklessly" to register as motor salvage operators may simply be innocent business men who made their statement in ignorance. They may not have understood what was needed on the form. They may be very good at salvaging cars, but not much good at paperwork.
If there is a problem with the law on recklessness, it is wrong that we cannot have recklessness in an offence that applies to the state and its servants—the authorities—because it is far too difficult and complicated and nobody will understand it, but that it can apply to a man running a small business. Such businesses may involve breaking up vehicles—occasionally for spare parts. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) knows such small businesses only too well from his days in Southwark—I do not suggest that he ever took his taxi to them.
Is it right that an ordinary business man, with a small business, should be put at risk of being found guilty of acting recklessly, when the real mischief that we want to attack is committed by the fraudster? We want to go after people who knowingly make false statements when registering as motor salvage operators. It was worrying that the Under-Secretary could not give me a ready reply to my question, because he drafted the provisions. There is clearly a significant difference between our suggestions in Committee and his proposals: it is the word "recklessness". If that word has been inserted without the hon. Gentleman's knowledge—or if he has not even thought about it—that really is a poor do. I hope that he will reflect on the matter. Perhaps during the debate he will recall why he thought that the word "recklessness" offered the way forward.
Our amendment No. 37 provides for an offence of "knowingly" making a false application. That is the basis on which we should proceed. Government amendment No. 4 provides for the offence of recklessly or knowingly making a false statement as to the registration of a number plate supplier. Again, I make the same point that I made about the earlier provision: there is an offence not merely in respect of "knowingly" but in respect of "recklessly" making a false statement.
Government amendment No. 4 includes proposed new subsection (2B), under which no application can be made for up to five years if the person has been banned from registering as a result of a conviction for making a false statement to apply. That is sensible; it is right that fraudsters should be banned, but is it fair to ban someone who has acted recklessly? Clearly, such a ban is fair enough if someone has behaved dishonestly, and knowingly so, but recklessness is a borderline issue and the Minister may feel that the provision presents dangers for small business men.
Government amendment No. 5 is technical and Government amendment No. 6 is consequential. Government amendment No. 7 provides that if a person has been convicted of making a false application, he can be removed from the register and a prohibition will apply. We have no problem with that. Amendment No. 40, which we tabled, would make it an offence to submit a false application to register as a number plate supplier. Again, it includes the word "knowingly".
We suggest that a level 5 fine should be imposed for the offence of failing to notify changes in information on the register. The Under-Secretary dismissed that suggestion, saying that there is a great difference between not notifying a change in circumstances and making a false statement at the outset. However, my experience, as a Minister with responsibility for benefit fraud, was that people would often make a genuine claim initially, but their circumstances would change and they would not tell the authorities. That was a big problem. In a sense, such fraud was almost a crime of omission, although dishonesty and guilt were involved. People often find it easier to mislead the authorities by not doing what they have a duty to do than by deliberately setting out to lie. The same applies to these provisions.
If a motor salvage operator begins perfectly satisfactorily, tells no lies and has a good business, but that business goes badly wrong, he may be tempted to make changes to the business that may lead it into the black market and to become involved in the activities that the Government want to curtail. In those circumstances, not giving notification of a change of address could be a crucial indicator of the fact that that operator is operating dishonestly and is misleading the authorities. It is often easier to detect crimes in which people have to tell the authorities something and lie than those in which they do not have to tell them anything. It is therefore important to impose a fairly tough penalty in such cases to dissuade those who may be tempted to fail to give the information to which the authorities are entitled. I ask the Under-Secretary to respond to that important issue.
Government amendment No. 15 will add the concept of guilty knowledge to the offence of selling a counterfeit registration plate. Again, it states that someone must know, or be reckless about the fact that, something is not a true plate. It is good that that will no longer be an absolute offence and that the Minister is prepared to introduce the mental element or the golden thread to which I have referred—but not too often because the Minister of State hates lawyers and does not like to be reminded too much about the country's legal history. I am not sure why that is so, because if the Minister of State ever becomes Prime Minister, he will look with delight on the country's history and think himself part of a great chain of historical events. He might think that our legal system is rather good; it is one of the things for which this country is most prized. Our common law is recognised internationally as one of the things that we have given to the world and our system of justice is well respected across the Commonwealth and half the world. Perhaps it is not the law but the lawyers at which he aims his attack.
It is good that the golden thread of knowledge and the mental element of crime will be introduced under Government amendment No. 15, but the Under-Secretary should explain the use of the term "recklessness". Why

has that complicated concept been introduced, given that the Minister of State has told us that it is almost impossible to understand?
Amendment No. 42 would increase from level 4 to level 5 the penalty for selling a counterfeit plate. Such matters depend on whether people believe that selling a counterfeit plate is a serious crime. On Second Reading, we were told that it was important, that it fuelled crime and that it should be stamped out. I agree with that; everyone who hears media reports of criminals who steal cars and fit counterfeit plates to them knows that it is a way in which they mask their identity. If that is crucial to the commission of crime, surely selling such a plate is an important matter for which a substantial sentence should be imposed.
With the best will in the world, we have to recognise that those who commit such an offence do so for money. It is a commercial offence, so a £2,000 fine is surely too low. If this is a commercial exercise designed to stop people committing the offence, it seems wrong to set the penalty at such a low level. I hope that the Under-Secretary is prepared to reply to those points. Perhaps he will tell us his detailed views on the law of recklessness. If not, perhaps the Attorney-General will tell us what he thinks later.

Mr. Fabricant: I, too, rise to support amendments Nos. 37, 40, 41 and 42, tabled by my hon. Friends. As I said during the debate on the programme motion, I find it extraordinary that the provisions contained in new clause 1 were left out of the Bill. Many hon. Members know that I am pro-American. Being so pro-American, I think that they should be called not the Buckingham amendments but the Bercow amendments because that is what they would be called in the United States and it would be in recognition of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) discovered this lacuna in the Bill. It is a truly amazing gap.
The Bill is primarily intended to enable the registration of licence plate suppliers and motor salvage operators, but there was no provision imposing sanctions on those who deliberately provide false information when registering. That extraordinary omission clearly demonstrates the need for scrutiny—and, indeed, the need for the House—so it ill behoves the Government deliberately to limit the time available for such scrutiny.
In the previous Session, the Utilities Bill was cut in half, but the Government propose additions to this Bill. I suppose that we could argue that we at least have a listening Government because, now that the Opposition have had time to identify gaps in the legislation, they now suggest the inclusion of the missing provisions. I am not convinced that the Bill does not contain other, similar lacunae. Of course, the Under-Secretary cannot guarantee us that no other lacunae exist because there has been insufficient time to deal with such issues.
I want to speak to Government amendment No. 15. The Under-Secretary wondered whether it was trivial for the numbers 1 and 3 to be put together to make the letter B. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) has already asked whether the £2,000 fine is sufficient to deter criminals from altering number plates, given that such crimes often involve large sums. This morning I met Sir John Stevens, the London police commissioner, who said that people under the age of 17


commit about 70 per cent. of crime in London—a sobering statistic. Nevertheless major crime is committed to obtain big money. I hardly think that a fine of £2,000 is an adequate deterrent.

6.30

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that his proposition is supported by the Government's own advocacy for the Bill on Second Reading? They made it clear that the measures were designed to tackle car crime in and of itself, not only because of the damage that it does and the emotional scars that it can cause but because it is the gateway to the commission of more serious offences, including drug trafficking and terrorism.

Mr. Fabricant: As ever, my hon. Friend is completely correct. He leads me on to a fresh point. The police are beginning to use interesting new technology in their fight against crime. I welcome the use of the automatic licence plate recognition equipment, which is already used at some of our ports. I hope that it will also be introduced on major trunk roads. The equipment is made up of television cameras that are linked to computers that can recognise and read the licence plates of cars as they move by. If a car is stolen or if the police need to survey it for any reason, the computer will immediately flag up its existence and draw it to the attention of the relevant authorities.
I was about to intervene on the Under-Secretary when he concluded his remarks. I believe that he said he did not think it was too serious a crime to alter a licence plate by putting a "1" and a "3" together to look like a "B" or to use italic instead of standard script, even though to do so would contravene existing road traffic and other Acts. What would be the effect on the new equipment if plates were altered in that way? Surely, if a police officer were trying to detect the whereabouts of a stolen vehicle or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham suggests, one containing drugs and a "1" and a "3" were together on its licence plate, is it not possible that the equipment might see that as a "B" and not highlight to the relevant authorities the fact that the vehicle had just moved by or entered the country? At present, the equipment just recognises UK licence plates, but it will shortly recognise those from other countries.

Mr. Bob Russell: Does the hon. Gentleman approve or disapprove of people who amend their licence plates in the way that he has described?

Mr. Fabricant: I hope that I made myself clear. However, if I have not done so, I make it absolutely clear now that I disapprove of such conduct. I regret the fact that the Under-Secretary finished his speech before I could intervene, but I got the impression that he was making light of the fact that people could amend their licence plates to make them more attractive. I am sure that he will clarify that when he winds up this debate. For example, if I had the licence plate "FA 13", would I be tempted to change it to "FAB"? I think not. Unlike the late lamented Gerald Nabarro, I have no desire to have a series of vehicles with the licence plates, "NAB 1", "NAB 2" and "NAB 3", or even "FAB 1", "FAB 2" and "FAB 3".

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Or "FAB FM".

Mr. Fabricant: Or "FAB FM", as the Minister suggests, referring to a non-existent radio station with which he thinks I was involved some years ago.
This is a serious matter. If one changes a licence plate to such a degree that a police officer cannot recognise it either with the naked eye or automatic equipment and thus is unable to follow the vehicle or stop it if it is stolen, surely that negates the whole point of having plates in the first place. Does the Under-Secretary not think that he was being reckless in suggesting that such an offence would not be as serious as some of the others in the Bill?

Mr. Graham Brady: Before my hon. Friend moves on from the issue of automatic licence plate recognition, will he tell us whether he shares the concerns that I and other hon. Members have about the misuse of such technology and the civil liberties implications? Does he not consider it possible that the existence of such technology might make it more likely that people will wish to change their licence plate numbers even if they are not guilty of a crime?

Mr. Fabricant: If people were to change their licence plates, they would be guilty of a crime. I shall not go into great detail on that question, because that would be out of order, but I merely say that I do not regard the use of the equipment as an invasion of civil liberties. However, I accept that some people will argue that it is another example of big brother.
However, one could argue that if one had a police officer on every street corner—oh, I dream about that nightly for Lichfield, but it will not come about.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fabricant: I shall give way to the Minister, who tried engagingly to intervene on me in the debate on the ten-minute Bill. I realise that he is a relatively new boy and did not know that one cannot intervene in such a debate. I promised that I would give way to him at a suitable juncture; I suspect this is the point.

Mr. Clarke: I was almost out of order earlier, but the hon. Gentleman helped me. However, I wish to point out that there was a useful Adjournment debate this morning with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on the issue of police numbers in Staffordshire. We were all disappointed that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) could not attend to discuss his views in detail in the appropriate forum.

Mr. Fabricant: I am glad that the Minister has raised that point, because I can now put on record where I was this morning.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The House is mainly concerned by the fact that the hon. Gentleman is here now, and should be addressing the new clause that is before us.

Mr. Fabricant: Of course I will abide by your instructions, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, if I had been


able to attend the debate, I would have been there. I was with the Staffordshire Regiment, but I cannot say any more because that would be out of order. It was an equally important event to do with my constituency of Lichfield, but I was torn because I wanted to attend that debate.
To answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), I do not believe that the use of the equipment is an invasion of civil liberties. I regard the use of extra police officers or new technology to apprehend criminals as protection for all law-abiding people. It helps to protect innocent, decent, honourable people—and, by definition, we are all honourable in this House—so it is a good thing.
My hon. Friend is a philosopher. Like Topol in "Fiddler on the Roof", he always see two sides to an argument. He has an Hasidic viewpoint—on the one hand this, on the other hand that—and he is right because he is truly a statesman. On balance, I would prefer it for the new technology to be rolled out. I accept that the civil liberties lobby will say that it is an example of big brother but, if big brother is there to protect me, I am happy. Big brother will be a good brother provided that the Bill is properly scrutinised by the House. That is why I get so upset when Bills are rushed through under timetable motions.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because it enables me to pick him up on an important theme in the debate. Does he not agree that one of the reasons—a reason on which I did not dilate in the debate on the programme motion—for us to have more time thoroughly to consider the contents of the Bill is that several of its key provisions, amendments and new clauses are not ultimately a matter of party politics? They involve matters of discretion and judgment by individual Members in different parties. There is no uniformity of view on some of the issues, so does my hon. Friend accept that we need a—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot rehearse the arguments that we heard in the debate on the programme motion. There are many groups of amendments to cover and other hon. Members may want to contribute to the debate. I should be grateful if that were borne in mind.

Mr. Fabricant: My final point relates to recklessness. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire said that what was sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander when we compare the Bill with other legislation. However, I have a specific issue to raise.
New clause 1(1)(b) states that someone who
recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular, shall be guilty of an offence".
How will it be possible to prove in a court of law that a statement was made recklessly? The principle of English common law, about which my hon. Friend waxed so lyrically and accurately, is the gift that we have given the world. Under common law, it is necessary to prove a guilty mind—there must be mens rea. How will we be able to get a conviction under new clause 1(1)(b)? How will people be able to prove that a statement was made recklessly rather than by pure accident or out of innocence? How can we get into the mind of the individual? That is my criticism of the word "recklessly".
I suspect that the Minister used the same argument when we discussed the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Bercow: The word "reckless" was not mentioned in the Standing Committee's deliberations. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is describing the distinction between inadvertent neglect and wilful contempt? It is important that that be clarified.

Mr. Fabricant: As ever, my hon. Friend uses words carefully. The courts would try to differentiate in that way, but it would be difficult for them to do so because English law is about evidence. If a crime has been committed, the evidence has to be provided in court so that a magistrate or jury believes that the person has committed the crime. There must be a guilty mind; there must be mens rea. How will we get into the mind of the individual to show that he was reckless rather than in contempt of the law? It will be impossible to prove that.
The Bill was hastily presented, which gave rise to the massive lacuna that the Government are attempting to fill with new clause 1. I suspect that the new clause has also been hastily tabled. It contains a series of lacunae, or at least loopholes, that will keep lawyers, who are so hated by the Minister, in business for many a year. It is sad that, since 1997, Bills have been hastily prepared and, although they have been filled with good intentions, they have also been filled with giant loopholes. Either they contain loopholes that keep lawyers in business for years or, as happened with the Utilities Act 2000, great chunks are removed before they reach the statute book.
Can the Under-Secretary assure me that the new clause has not been recklessly compiled? Can he assure me that there will be convictions under new clause 1(1)(b)? Can he assure me that, if licence plates are changed—for example, when the numbers 1 and 3 are put together to make the letter B—so that police officers and the vehicle licence plate recognition equipment cannot read them correctly, that is not an unimportant matter? If so, why will a level 5 penalty not be applied?

6.45

Mr. Hill: The exchanges to which we have just been treated demonstrate that there is not much difference between the Government and the official Opposition. I shall attempt to deal with the points that have been raised.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) mentioned the level of fines if a person fails to notify a change of address. The Government are responding to most people's perception that such a failure, which is more likely to be an unwitting action, is not as serious as providing false information.

Mr. Heald: If the Under-Secretary wants to table a manuscript amendment that contains the word "knowingly", I shall be more than happy to consider it.

Mr. Hill: It is with great enthusiasm that I address the vexed issue of recklessness and knowingness. I shall have several stabs at answering the questions. Let me set out my stall. It is vital that the application process generates true and accurate information. No doubt we would all agree on that. Clause 10 deals with accuracy; the new clause deals with true information. Why should people


who are reckless and do not care whether the information that they submit is true be allowed to escape? That must be discouraged. The conscientious who make a mistake are unlikely to be reckless.

Mr. Heald: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hill: No, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have another opportunity to return to the issue of recklessness.
The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) asked how we can get a conviction on the grounds of recklessness. Bearing in mind the amount of time that he took to make his point, I am extremely glad that he is not my lawyer.
It is for the judicial process—the courts—to decide whether an act was reckless. It is incumbent on the prosecution to show that the accused took no steps to verify the information. The prosecution would have to ask whether a reasonable person knew that his statement was false. The fact is that there are many reckless offences in statute. The Criminal Damage Act 1971 contains such offences and successful prosecutions take place under it.

Mr. Heald: I made those arguments when we discussed unlawful interceptions by the state authorities in our debates on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. When we dealt with the important matter of the state committing offences, the Minister told me that it was impossible to have the offence of recklessness when the arrogant use of power was the issue. He said that the subject was so complicated that the courts could not understand it and that there were different interpretations of the law. Now, why should the poor old garagiste in Peckham, Southwark, Eltham or north Hertfordshire have to wrestle with the concept of recklessness if it is not good enough for the Secret Intelligence Service and the authorities in Britain?

Mr. Hill: It is a matter of eternal regret to me that I was not a member of the Committee that considered that Bill and was therefore unable to listen to the hon. Gentleman at even greater length. We are dealing now with an entirely different Bill, and there is no comparison between the two measures.
I return to the issues of recklessness and knowingness, on which I was seeking to help the Opposition. At present, a person accused of knowingly committing an offence will escape conviction if he shows that he does not know because he does not care. The introduction of the concept of recklessness fills that gap, as it does in other legislation, and it differs from knowingness in that "knowingly" means that someone has subjective knowledge—he knows that he is making a false statement, rather than just not caring. That is a pretty clear distinction between concepts.
I shall have a final stab at explaining that difference to the Opposition. "Reckless" means not taking pains to ensure whether what is said is true. We want to deter that in the application process, where it is important to be accurate, and that is consistent with clause 10, where reckless failure to notify will also be an offence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is perfectly clear to me from the acclaim that I am receiving from my hon. Friends that I have explained that distinction to the satisfaction of the majority party.
I propose then to proceed to the last issue of minor substance, the question of offences in connection with the supply of number plates, which was raised by the

Opposition in their response to my opening remarks. As we have explained repeatedly during our many fascinating discussions on the subject, the issue that the Government are seeking to tackle is the abuse of the number plates supplied, which is the most serious problem.
It is not our purpose to criminalise the number plate supply industry. However, we wish to deter the practice of selling number plates with characters so arranged as to make them resemble a person's name. As I have said before, we think that a level 3 fine is just about appropriate in those circumstances, and we are pretty sure that the majority of the great British public—25 million of whom are motorists—would agree.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

UNIFIED POWER FOR SECRETARY OF STATE TO FUND SPEED CAMERAS ETC

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may make payments in respect of the whole or any part of the expenditure of a public authority in relation to—

(a) the prevention or detection of offences to which subsection (2) applies; or
(b) any enforcement action or proceedings in respect of such offences or any alleged such offences.

(2) This subsection applies to offences under—

(a) section 16 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which consist in contraventions of restrictions on the speed of vehicles imposed under section 14 of that Act;
(b) subsection (4) of section 17 of that Act which consist in contraventions of restrictions on the speed of vehicles imposed under that section;
(c) section 88(7) of that Act (temporary minimum speed limits);
(d) section 89(1) of that Act (speeding offences generally);
(e) section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which consist in the failure to comply with an indication given by a light signal that vehicular traffic is not to proceed.

(3) Payments under this section shall be made to—

(a) the public authority in respect of whose expenditure the payments are being made; or
(b) any other public authority for payment, in accordance with arrangements agreed with the Secretary of State, to, or on behalf of, the public authority in respect of whose expenditure the payments are being made.

(4) Payments under this section shall be paid at such times, in such manner and subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may determine.

(5) In this section "public authority" means—

(a) any highway authority (within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980);
(b) any police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1996, the Metropolitan Police Authority or the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a police authority;
(c) any responsible authority (within the meaning of section 55 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997) or the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority; and
(d) any body or other person not falling within paragraphs (a) to (c) and so far as exercising functions of a public nature.'.—[Mr. Hill.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 5—Abandoned vehicles: payments to local authorities—
'2A. The Secretary of State may make payments to local authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by them in complying with the provisions of section 3(1) below, though such payments shall not exceed the amounts paid in fines in respect of offences under section 2(1)(a) above.'.
Government amendment No. 43.
Amendment No. 26, in clause 37, page 21, line 48, at end insert—
`(f)section 2 of that Act (dangerous driving);
(g)section 3 of that Act (careless, and inconsiderate, driving);
(h)section 4(1) and 4(2) of that Act (driving, or being in charge, when under influence of drink or drugs);
(i)section 5(1) of that Act (driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit).'.
Government amendments Nos. 46 to 54.

Mr. Hill: Amendment No. 43 would remove clause 37. That will satisfy Opposition Members who tabled an amendment to remove the clause. I welcome their intention to withdraw that amendment. New clause 7 would take the place of clause 37, and I shall explain our reasons for tabling it.
Clause 37 establishes a power for the Lord Chancellor to make payments to the authorities responsible for funding magistrates courts to meet the full costs of administering speed and traffic light offences. However, the provision does not enable the Lord Chancellor to make payments to other bodies such as local authorities and the police, which can form partnerships to carry out the enforcement activities. The other bodies involved in the partnerships formed to fund camera placement and operation already have established financial arrangements with other Departments; for example, the police are of course funded principally from the Home Office.
When the Treasury took the decision to allow payments to be made directly from netted-off fine revenue in certain circumstances, it quite rightly placed on any proposals to do so several important criteria that had to be met before approval would be given to proceed. One of the criteria was to ensure that any scheme put in place did not result in increased bureaucracy. As a new Labour libertarian, I fully endorse that sentiment.
We are therefore left with a clear choice either to fund the various partners through several separate funding routes or to link them all up for these purposes by channelling the netted-off revenue through one Department. That is exactly how the current safety camera pilots are operating. The funds are channelled through the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for distribution to lead authorities in each partnership, which in these cases is a local authority. That arrangement is allowed for the time being under the provisions of the Appropriation Acts, but that can only be a temporary measure. It clearly follows that to meet the

Treasury criterion of keeping bureaucracy to a minimum, we must seek to continue the system that is working so effectively in the pilots.

Mr. Bob Russell: Will the Minister state categorically whether the new clause is a road safety, crash reduction measure or a revenue generator?

Mr. Hill: It goes without saying that this is a measure concerned with road safety and the prevention of road accidents. It could not be for any other purpose, and it would be grossly irresponsible and unfair of the hon. Gentleman to suggest otherwise.

Mr. Russell: rose—

Mr. Hill: I am very fond of the hon. Gentleman, so of course I will give way again.

Mr. Russell: I welcome that clarification and reassurance. I was just observing that so far the words "road safety" and "accident reduction" have not passed the Minister's lips.

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing that clarification. I know very well of his excellent work in RoadPeace, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about these matters.
We had hoped to be able to sustain the pilot scheme arrangements within existing law, rules and conventions by allowing DETR to act as a paying agent for other Departments, but that has not proved to be possible.

Mr. Bercow: The Under-Secretary assures the House that in no sense is this a revenue-raising measure, but so far as my hon. Friends and I are concerned, this seems to be a case of "methinks he doth protest too much". Will the hon. Gentleman therefore confirm that in no one year would the receipts to the public fund exceed the expenditure on road safety that those funds would afford?

Mr. Hill: It would certainly be the Government's purpose to ensure that there was an appropriate balance of receipt and expenditure, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, he will realise that it is not possible for any Minister, any Department or any Government to ensure that that is invariably the case. There is an intention that is fulfilled over time and in general terms, but it would be unrealistic for a Minister to offer the precise guarantee that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman really is digging himself in deep. For the delectation and edification of the House I must repeat what he just said. He referred to an appropriate balance. That does not mean an equal balance. He referred to its achievement over time in general terms. I suggest that as a harbinger of good intent, it would be helpful if he could confirm that the equality between receipts and expenditure on road safety should have to be achieved within five years. Will he, as a junior but rising Minister, at least sign up to that commitment?

7 pm

Mr. Hill: Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's slightly improbable blandishments, I will not make the commitment that he is seeking—as with the foreign policy issues on which he tempted me earlier in our proceedings. I repeat the assurance that I gave to the distinguished hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell). The purpose of the provisions before us is entirely to improve road safety and to reduce accidents. The Government's objective will be to ensure that there is a balance of expenditure with revenue, and these matters are subject to the auditing process. They are for the public record and for public demonstration.

Mr. David Chidgey: I fully accept what the Minister is saying about balancing budgets over time. That is an acceptable and sensible way forward. However, I am interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman can give us any idea from discussions in his Department of what is expected in terms of revenues from fines arising from the use of speed cameras being channelled into road safety measures. What is the Department's perception of the increased funding from the use of speed cameras being used to increase road safety measures? Does the hon. Gentleman have a programme in mind? By how much will we be able to extend the use of speed cameras from the pilot schemes, which have clearly been successful?

Mr. Hill: The purpose of the proposed legislation is to enable the programme to be rolled out nationally on the basis of eight successful pilot schemes. In due course, we are anticipating a significant increase in the resource that will be available to introduce speed cameras. I hope that that is of some assurance to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Given the intervention of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I wish there to be no misunderstanding. My hon. Friend has made it clear that the money is for road safety purposes. It is therefore axiomatic that the money must be spent on road safety purposes. It would be clear to any auditor and to any highway authority that the use of the money for any other purpose would be against the will of the House.

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is right. He puts the matter most succinctly, and I am grateful for his help.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. It is always a pleasure to joust with him.
We do not quite know the purpose of the intervention of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), because his purpose is rarely clear. However, the effect of his rather foolish intervention, whether he intended it or not, was to tie the Minister down. Will the Minister confirm that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said that the money must effectively be ring-fenced—[Interruption.] Yes, the hon. Gentleman did. If the Minister agrees that the money can be spent only on road safety measures, which means in practice that it will be ring fenced, why is he not prepared to commit himself to the proposition that that is exactly and exclusively how it will be spent, measured over a five-year period? It is a simple challenge. Why can he not rise to it?

Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman is not making an unreasonable proposition. On balance, over a five-year

period, one would expect these matters to even out. I accept the general thrust of his observation but I am not in a position to say that there will be precise equality between revenue and expenditure at the end of a five-year period.

Mr. Bercow: Why?

Mr. Hill: However, that would be a desirable outcome to which the Government are certainly working.
I heard the hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, ask, "Why?" On the whole, the Government like to approach these matters in a slightly more considered way than responding to flashes of inspiration from Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman has had not a bad idea, and I have tried to be responsive to the broad thrust of his observation. However, he cannot expect me to make policy on the hoof, even though we are impressed by the ideas that flow from him in such a fecund fashion.
I return to the point that I was evidently so laboriously trying to make. I was saying that we had hoped to make the provision within existing conventions by allowing the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to act as a paying agent for other Government Departments. That has not proved to be possible. Therefore, to establish a clear power for DETR to make payments on a permanent basis, new clause 7 introduces a different arrangement from that set out in clause 37.
New clause 7 is purely a mechanism to allow the funds to be channelled efficiently to any future partnerships through the one Department. In so doing, it allows the funding mechanism for speed limit and traffic signal enforcement to be established as simply and effectively as possible. I stress that the scope of the clause is limited entirely to funding enforcement activity that is associated only with speed limit and traffic signal violations.

Mr. Chidgey: Further to my previous intervention, the Minister will accept that I am generally supportive of the ambitions of the clause. However, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman provided a little more detail in relation to the national programme that will be funded as he has described. What specific difference will it make to existing plans within the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to extend the programme of speed cameras? Will the hon. Gentleman indicate what amount of revenue—or funding, if he so wishes—will be raised in addition to what would otherwise have been budgeted for in the Department's capital programme? What impact does the Minister think the scheme will have?

Mr. Hill: First, the Government take these matters step by step. We implement experimental or pilot schemes to ascertain whether ideas are sustainable. In this instance, given the success of the pilot schemes they evidently are. Secondly, we roll out the legislation so that the measures can be applied nationally, recognising that that is likely to produce desirable results.
Within the framework that we are debating, we shall proceed in conjunction with local authorities to work out a detailed scheme of support and allocation of resource so that there can be a significant change in local arrangements. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman. It seems it does, given his assent from a sedentary position.
If clause 37 is to be replaced, there need to be some minor amendments to the schedule to reflect that. These can be seen in amendments Nos. 46 to 54.
We have debated both on Second Reading and in Committee the principle of the netting-off procedure for safety camera operation. I believe I am right in saying that there is a consensus that it is right and sensible, in the context of improving road safety and reducing the risk of accidents, to press ahead to make netting-off for speed and traffic signal enforcement available nationally. Indeed, in tabling amendment No. 26 to expand the netting-off procedure to cover careless, dangerous and drink or drug driving, the hon. Members for Lichfield, for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) and for Colchester clearly demonstrate that general support for this road safety measure is evident in the House.
I fully recognise that the proposed Opposition amendment is well intentioned, but in this context it is not appropriate, for reasons that I shall set out. The netting-off process is to be applied only to specific fixed-penalty offences. It was decided at the outset that the scheme would be limited to fixed-penalty offences, and the pilot schemes are proceeding on that basis. Some of the receipts from the penalties will be invested in greater enforcement activity, which will continue to put road safety first.
However, more complex cases outside the fixed-penalty procedure are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both. We maintain strongly that those cases are not to be included because courts may appear vulnerable to the charge that penalties were set in individual cases for reasons of wider monetary pressures, rather than in the interests of justice and the income of the individual. The amendment includes some serious offences that can be dealt with only by court appearance and, following conviction, would result in mandatory disqualification and perhaps even a custodial sentence. Fixed penalties are certainly not appropriate for those offences.
The House will be aware that the Government are currently addressing the wider issue by conducting a review of penalties for the main road traffic offences, including drink and drug-driving, careless driving and dangerous driving. Its purpose is to consider whether the current maximum penalties remain appropriate, and to ensure that any proposed changes to penalties that we may wish to make are consistent within the whole sentencing framework.
For the reasons that I have given, it is right that the clause should be limited to netting off fixed-penalty revenue to fund speed and traffic light violation enforcement and is not suitable for expansion into other areas. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Lichfield will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
I now turn to new clause 5, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and others, which is legally defective. It is headed,
Abandoned Vehicles: payments to local authorities
and its references to sections are unsourced and make no sense in the context of the Bill, clause 2 of which refers only to the registration of salvage operators. There is no "section 2(1)(a) above" as the amendment states. It is possible that those who tabled the amendment had in mind

the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, which makes it an offence to abandon a vehicle in a public place and obliges the local authority to remove such vehicles in certain circumstances.
The amendment seeks to allow the Secretary of State to make payments to local authorities for the purpose of removing abandoned vehicles, provided that the payments do not exceed the value of fines imposed for abandoning them. That would be an additional resource for the collection of abandoned vehicles. Of course, we understand the extent of concern about abandoned vehicles, and agree that the problem must be tackled. In fact, it was raised on Second Reading and in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). However, we do not agree that the amendment would provide the practical solution that it seeks. In particular, it does not take account of the work of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the police.

Mr. Bob Russell: If that is not a practical way forward, will the Minister indicate what measures the Government have in mind to take action against that growing problem?

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was coming on to set out those precise measures.
As I have said, we are keen to tackle the problem of abandoned vehicles, which are an eyesore and cause considerable concern to the public. They are also dangerous. I well remember a pupil at a Glasgow school at which my wife once taught who died after playing with an abandoned vehicle and dropping a lighted match into the petrol tank. There was an explosion and the child was killed. It is because of such cases that it is important to deal with the issue.
7.15 pm
We are watching closely a pilot scheme in Medway, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford is involved and which is partly funded by the DVLA. The scheme was due to begin on 22 January, and I understand from my hon. Friend that it has already made a promising start. I rather think that we will hear more from him, should he catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the mean time, I want to put on the record my tribute to my hon. Friend for his personal contribution to initiating that important scheme.
Abandoned vehicles are usually untaxed and, under the scheme, untaxed vehicles will be wheel-clamped by one of DVLA's contractors—Sureway—and, if they are not taxed within 24 hours, will be removed to one of two car pounds and disposed of after 35 days. The pilot is a multi-agency approach to the problem and, if successful, could be used in other areas. There will be no advance publicity associated with the scheme: the aim is to deliver a short, sharp shock to the owners of unlicensed vehicles and force them to relicense. A number of abandoned vehicles will also be caught in the net.

Mr. Clive Efford: Will my hon. Friend clarify whether that scheme involves recouping the costs of disposing of those vehicles? The experience in my local authority, which is spending about £160,000 a year on the disposal of abandoned vehicles, is that, when the owners are approached, they say that they have sold the vehicle to a person in the pub or somewhere, but that he or she


has not come to pick it up. They are literally discarding their vehicles on the roadside and leaving it to others, through their council tax, to pay for their disposal. Unless a penalty is involved, that practice will continue.

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is right: the disposal of abandoned vehicles is enormously costly to local authorities—both those like my own authority of Lambeth which is almost adjacent to my hon. Friend's authority, and others nationally. The problem is enormously expensive and the Government are certainly looking at costs as we review the issue of abandoned vehicles—a matter in which I personally take a close interest as a Minister. My hon. Friend's observation is therefore taken very seriously.
To return briefly to the Medway pilot scheme, we hope its evaluation will provide us with solutions that we can introduce nationally, some of which may require legislative changes in their own right. In the light of his observation, may I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) that it seems more sensible to consider all possible legislative changes as a whole in due course? In addition, on the horizon is the vehicles (end-of-life) directive which seeks to make provision for the collection and environmentally sound destruction, or recovery and re-use, of vehicles that have outlived their usefulness. We are currently looking at how best to implement the directive which will, we hope, tackle the problem that the amendment seeks to address. In the meantime, for the extremely cogent reasons that I have advanced, I trust that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will agree not to press his new clause.

Mr. Bercow: There has been a remarkable change of heart on the part of the Government. Of itself, that is not necessarily to be regretted or deplored, but the extent to which, at this relatively late stage in the consideration of the Bill, Ministers seem uncertain about the means by which to achieve their objective is scant reassurance to the rest of the House, the affected industries and, indeed, the wider public.
Despite the fact that the Minister must have been considerably embarrassed about that about-turn, he did his best to camouflage it and presented a difficult case with his usual vigour and alacrity. However, there is a big change on the Government's part. Previously, they thought that the arrangement was fine and, only 10 days or so ago, they were commending their planned intentions to the Standing Committee. Now, it seems, there has been a turf war, from which the Home Office—the lead Department dealing with the Bill—has, not surprisingly, emerged victorious. Nevertheless, there are genuine concerns about the Government's position on the proposal to finance a wide-scale roll-out of additional speed cameras.
The main concern that my hon. Friends and I have, which we explained in Committee and which was not convincingly answered, is that the proposal is far less a road safety measure than it is a tax-raising device. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) takes a different view. Not surprisingly, in view of past experience, he ended up a few moments ago disagreeing with himself, though he was probably unaware of it. That is a curious state of affairs. Hon. Members often disagree with each other across the House, and it is not entirely unprecedented for

members of the same party to disagree with each other, but it is very strange for a Member of Parliament to disagree with himself, and it is even more curious—I dare go so far as to suggest that it is unprecedented—for an hon. Member unknowingly to disagree with himself. That, unfortunately, is the situation in which the hon. Gentleman finds himself.

Mr. Bob Russell: I seek clarification from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Will he support new clause 7 or will he divide the House?

Mr. Bercow: There are other matters on which there might be Divisions, and the hon. Gentleman, who has a natural and well-developed inquisitiveness, must await developments. I am not prepared to tell him now when we might have a vote. [Interruption.] No, I am not disagreeing with myself. I am simply telling the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) that I understand his curiosity, but I assure the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) that I am not yet ready to satisfy the hon. Gentleman's curiosity.
As will become clear to hon. Members, my hon. Friends and I do not approve of new clause 7. We approve of new clause 5—not surprisingly, as it is ours. Let me be specific. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston had something of a tantrum a moment ago when I accused him of disagreeing with himself, and started insulting me from a sedentary position. I know that he has considerable knowledge of much legislation, and I respect that knowledge. However, people who are very knowledgeable can often be wrong-headed, and the hon. Gentleman is wrong-headed.
I shall explain why I accuse the hon. Gentleman of internal inconsistency and disagreement with himself. He asked the Minister in an intervention to confirm that all the proceeds of fines would have to be spent on road safety measures, for if that were not done, it would effectively defy the will of the House. In other words, any moneys raised would have to be spent on road safety measures. I assume that the hon. Gentleman was not being cynical. Whatever his other failings and merits, I have not accused him of being cynical. I assume that he was saying not just that money raised from fines would be spent only on road safety measures, but that all money raised from fines would be spent on road safety measures, and that it would not be appropriate, for example, to use the money to reduce interest charges that the Government might face. Not only could the money not be spent on another public policy, such as purchasing hospital equipment, but it could not be spent to satisfy another obligation, such as reducing a debt. All of it would have to be spent on road safety measures.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to be suggesting to the Minister—it was so clear that none could doubt or gainsay it—that the Government would ring-fence the funds. The Minister speedily responded and accepted that. He said yes, he thought that that was the intention. Thus the hon. Gentleman suggested ring-fencing, and the Minister took him up on it and said yes. I challenge the Minister to confirm that the ring-fencing would apply, if not in every year without fail—errors occur, and there can be a mismatch in one year or another—at least over the five-year period of a Parliament or, in view of the way in which the Government apparently intend to cut and run, over the expected four-year term of a Parliament.
At that point, the predictable confidence and remarkable assurance that the Minister usually displays in the delivery of his arguments immediately deserted him. All of a sudden, he retreated into a combination of the evasive and the coy. Now, I am very fond of the Minister. After all, he was my constituent when I was a young councillor in the London borough of Lambeth some years ago. We used to chat on the bus on which he travelled home, so we have always had good relations. I have the highest regard both for his integrity and for his debating skills. However, when he gets into difficulty, he waffles. When he does not know the answer, he becomes evasive. When he is severely under pressure, he says to the House, "Oh, but I am just a junior Minister. This is not a matter for me. I obviously cannot commit my senior, distinguished and highly respected right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will get into frightful difficulty if I do."
All that I was challenging the Minister to do was to confirm that, if the funds are to be ring-fenced, they will all be spent on road safety measures over a five-year period. All that I required from him was an answer in the affirmative or the negative. Instead, I got a circumlocutory evasion. That was not good enough.

Mr. Miller: rose—

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston thinks that he is about to enlighten the House, so of course I give way to him.

Mr. Miller: I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a question. Will he put on record how much he estimates needs to be spent on road safety schemes in his constituency, and what the shortfall is between that and current Government expenditure plans?

Mr. Bercow: That is a fascinating challenge, but I shall be honest and tell the hon. Gentleman that off the top of my head I do not have the square root of a clue. If he would find it a stimulating and enjoyable experience to correspond on the subject, because there is a genuine public interest at stake or he wants to pursue an important debating point with me, I should be happy to correspond with him.
I accept that the hon. Gentleman makes a fair challenge. He is right that, off the top of my head, I do not know the answer. Like all right hon. and hon. Members, I receive regular requests for support for particular schemes, and I lobby vigorously on behalf of those that I think are in the public interest. I do not know what the figures are, but seriously, I would be happy to correspond with the hon. Gentleman. Moreover, I accept the thinking underlying his intervention: that much work needs to be done to improve road safety.
What I found in Committee, as my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and—if she were present, which sadly she is not—for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) would testify, was one of those rare but striking occasions on which not only did Government and Opposition Members disagree about speed cameras, but there was almost blank incomprehension of each other's position. It is certainly fair to say that of the

Government's attitude to us. The Government seemed to think that using fines for the purpose of the massive roll-out of speed cameras would be a thoroughly good thing, that it would obviously be effective, and that only the most bizarre specimen could possible oppose it.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston nods to confirm that. [Interruption.] He rather impolitely spoils his point by saying from a sedentary position that the odd individual whom he has in mind is none other than yours truly. The trouble with that point is that it would apply if I were speaking only for myself, but, as 1 hope he will accept, I am speaking on behalf of the Opposition.
We believe that there is a degree of disingenuousness in the Government's plans, because they are not prepared to pledge that all the funds will be spent on road safety measures, and that the Government are in error in distorting by over-emphasis. They exaggerate the significance of speed, important consideration though it is, and the cost-effectiveness of a large-scale roll-out of additional speed cameras, as against various other causes of road accidents and possible means by which to address those problems.

Mr. Bob Russell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as road safety is in need of major investment across the country, any revenues generated by speed camera fines should be in addition to what is provided by the Exchequer, not a replacement for it?

Mr. Bercow: Liberal-Conservative alliances are rare in this Parliament, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to him for providing ballast to my argument. He is right to make that point, and he probably would not have to do so if the Government had confirmed more explicitly that all the money would be spent on road safety, and that that money would be in addition to, not instead of, other moneys. I think that the hon. Gentleman is hinting, in his understated and polite fashion—and, in my slightly less understated and polite fashion, I am happy to take up the hint—that the Government have an appalling record on so-called additionality.
7.30 pm
I know that you are familiar with the concept of additionality, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I have heard you expatiate on it in relation to Suffolk matters. The concept relates to whether Government spending is additional to, or a substitute for, what would otherwise be spent. Ordinarily, such argument arises in the context of lottery funding, but I shall not animadvert on that subject now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you would probably get cross if I did so. I would not want that to happen as we approach the dinner hour of some hon. Members.
None the less, the hon. Member for Colchester made a fair point. Will the Under-Secretary confirm that the funds are additional to any other funds that might be spent? That is a fair challenge. [Interruption.] I wish that I could have heard the sedentary observation made by the Minister of State, Home Office, as I might have been tempted to reply.

Mr. Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made an observation about dinner, and I remarked that the presence of only one Back-Bench Conservative Member suggested that the Opposition were


more keen to eat dinner than to participate in the debate in the manner that the hon. Gentleman described during consideration of the programme motion.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister, who can never resist an opportunity to point score—something that I never do, as he well knows. All that I can say in response is that I have no intention of going to dinner, although he would probably prefer me to do so. Apart from anything else, I am anxious to retain whatever element of a trim figure I currently possess. I am much more interested in discharging my obligations on Report and Third Reading than I am in consuming whatever the estimable House of Commons Refreshment Department has to offer.
As I have tried to emphasise, the Opposition are anxious that the Government are attaching a disproportionate significance to speed and that they are not attaching enough importance to other forms of dangerous driving. I know that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston disagrees with that argument. His views will doubtless be informed or reinforced by his constituency experience, so I assure him that I am speaking not off the top of my head, but on the basis of representations made to me by my own constituents. I say in all sincerity that such representations have been made to a number of Opposition Members. I find it inconceivable that they have not been made to Labour Members also.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston does not agree with the validity of my point. He might think that the only people who make such observations spend their time driving around at extraordinary speeds. However, a lot of people feel that many accidents are caused by dangerous and inconsiderate driving. It is not true to argue that such driving consists exclusively of excessive speed.

Mr. Miller: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the clear evidence to show that decreasing car speed from 30 mph to 20 mph reduces by 60 per cent. the injuries caused in crashes involving children?

Mr. Bercow: Yes. I have heard that point before and I know that it is correct. The hon. Gentleman's comments support the view that we should try to clamp down on speeding. I accept that view, but it does not mean that tackling speeding is the only method by which one should seek to improve road safety and reduce the number of accidents.

Mr. Miller: I agree.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman and I agree on that point and accept that speeding is not the only form of dangerous driving. We must therefore make a judgment on whether it is wise to use all the proceeds of fines for the exclusive purpose of extending dramatically the number of speed cameras throughout the United Kingdom. Although the spending of some money on that purpose might be justified, I am politely suggesting to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think it proportionate or wise to devote all of it—if, indeed, that is what the Government will do in practice.

Mr. Fabricant: On speeding, is my hon. Friend aware of the good work done by the hon. Member for Newport,

West (Mr. Flynn) on bull bars? That work has my wholehearted support. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston spoke about statistics on the killing of children at speeds of 30 mph and 20 mph, but is my hon. Friend aware that a child who is hit at head level by a bull bar—we should bear in mind that bull bars are usually fitted for cosmetic purposes—can be killed by a vehicle travelling at only 4 mph?

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that observation. I was aware of the potential damage that bull bars can do, although I did not know about the important work done by the hon. Member for Newport, West. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enlightening me on that point.
Conservative and Labour Members must agree to differ, both on the rationale for proposals to use fines for the funding of speed cameras and on their likely implementation. I refer to likely implementation as it is not clear whether the Government intend to stick in practice to the principles of ring fencing and total expenditure of fine proceeds on speed cameras, even though those are the principles that they appear to avow to the House.
We disagree not only about that point, but about payments to local authorities in respect of the obligation to secure the removal of abandoned vehicles. I should like to deal briefly with this matter, as the Minister of State and I disagreed about it in Committee. Indeed, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) also disagreed with me. I listened with respect to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, as I know that he is attending closely to the pilot scheme in his area, but I was fairly unfazed by his comments on a multi-agency approach. Although I always listen to him with interest. I thought that the frequent restating of the need for a multi-agency approach was a substitute for a policy rather than proof of one.

Mr. Heald: In due course.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend rightly indicates that the approach is still for the future. We are not even getting multi-agency co-operation now; it is to occur in the far-distant yonder. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford seems excited, so I shall give way to him.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I am not that excited, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If he wants facts rather than proposals—that is my interpretation of his remarks—he should know about the pilot that has started in the Medway towns. It brings together the DVLA, the police, the fire brigade and the local authority. The Medway towns now have a minority Conservative-led administration, so no partisan point is at stake for me. However, he might like to know that, before the pilot began, on average, four abandoned and untaxed vehicles were removed each week from the streets of the Medway towns. Within the first week of the pilot, however, between 50 and 60 vehicles were removed. If he is talking about the proof of the pudding, he should know that the pilots are certainly working.


They are bringing together the powers of all the agencies by introducing the proposal that I described in Committee. I think that that proposal will work.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He speaks as a constituency Member of Parliament and I do not seek to gainsay him, but I point out that it would not be right to prejudge the outcome at this early stage. He will accept that it is only on the conclusion of a pilot, when all the evidence has been considered and submitted—this applies also to the public and other inquiries of which we currently hear so much—that one can draw a conclusion about likely effects.

Mr. Shaw: rose—

Mr. Bercow: I am sorry, but I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. He knows that I am usually happy to do so, but I want to make progress.
I was a little disappointed that the Minister of State cavilled at our references. As he knows perfectly well from Standing Committee debates, the Opposition grounded our proposal on the requirements of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978. Under that Act, it is already an offence to abandon a vehicle in any place in the open air, and fines of up to £2,500 can be levied for such an offence.
A recent Royal Automobile Club survey found that between 150 and 200 cars were being abandoned each month in Islington alone. We must do something to tackle that problem. Although the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford was enthusiastic about how to deal with it in Medway or Chatham and Aylesford, he seemed baleful—nay, doleful—about the prospects of achieving progress elsewhere. Indeed, he suggested that pessimism was his middle name. He said that nothing could be done, that it was too much to expect, that the funds could not be provided, that local authorities would not deliver and that it was all very unfair. He suggested that we had to reconcile ourselves to huge numbers of abandoned vehicles while the Government engaged in a feeble display of collective hand-wringing.

Mr. Shaw: It is gracious of the hon. Gentleman to give way. He mentioned the Medway scheme earlier, and said that it was wrong to prejudge a pilot. Do not his proposals prejudge what local authorities will be able to collect? As I advised him in Committee, officers from Kent county council and Medway council, which are both Conservative authorities, advised me that 90 per cent. of abandoned vehicles were untraceable.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman underestimates the significance of financial constraint as a means of halting or retarding the progress of local authorities in tackling abandoned vehicles. Our proposal is based on our belief that assistance is required. The hon. Gentleman accuses me and the Opposition of anticipating or second-guessing the pilot scheme. I disagree, because the approach that he commends—the final results of which we will be made aware of—need not be incompatible with the simultaneous pursuit of the national policy that the Conservative Opposition recommend. Let a thousand lights burn; let a variety of approaches be adopted, and

let the availability of resources that we recommend be a staple feature of the policy. Councils will then have the resources to discharge their obligations.
We developed the arguments clearly in Committee. I was sorry that the Minister and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford were so unenthusiastic, because I believe that many people who live in areas where abandoned vehicles multiply by the day look to the Government to take decisive action. We recommend such action, but the Government resist it. We believe that we are right and that they are wrong.

Mr. Miller: New clause 7 grants a clear set of powers. They are welcome, especially to hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), who have had the unfortunate responsibility of dealing with constituents who have lost a loved one through a road crash.
I have persistently and consistently nagged the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) on the matters that we are discussing. They therefore know that I believe strongly that we need to do much more about road safety. I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that much wider measures are required. I want local authorities to use more widely their powers to reduce speed limits in urban estates. I support better driver education and more rigorous enforcement of the regulations that govern the substances that people may have consumed. I have discussed with the British Medical Association a range of ethical matters that relate to drivers who are hospitalised after causing a crash. Many issues need to be tackled.
I am especially pleased that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are present. They accept that Parliament and the Government have a responsibility for dealing with those matters, even though some aspects are not popular with the public. That is shown by the failure of the hon. Member for Buckingham to support new clause 7 although he supports the removal of clause 37. Of course, people who believe themselves to be good drivers—we all do when we are behind the wheel of a tonne of steel—are frustrated if they come across too many lights. However, they are there for the good reason that speed kills. The evidence is unequivocal; a reduction in speed causes a reduction in deaths and serious injury.
7.45 pm
As a result of much work, some of which I have mentioned, I want us to reach a position whereby the new clause becomes defunct. In an ideal world, we would educate our drivers, develop vehicle safety, road design and other aspects to the point where such technology became unnecessary. The hon. Member for Buckingham asked about the figures in five years and whether they would be balanced. I should like us to reach a point, through a wide range of measures, where the Government of the day—I am sure that my hon. Friends will remain on the Front Bench—can decide that the provision has achieved its objective and begin to devise other methods of using the resources.
The new clause has revenue implications, and I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham that the provision should not create a revenue-raising power. That is why I


probed my hon. Friend the Minister through an amendment to ascertain whether any revenue would be used for road safety measures. My hon. Friend confirmed that in Committee and today.

Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman spoke of an ideal world in which road safety measures would be so successful that awful accidents would not happen. Has the hon. Gentleman considered that if the national programme for speed cameras is so successful that the number of offences is significantly reduced, the revenue will also be reduced? There is a law of diminishing returns. I am seriously worried about the ability to continue supporting the programme.

Mr. Miller: If we considered that argument in isolation, the hon. Gentleman would be right. However, when we take all aspects of death on the road into account he is wrong. It has been estimated that every death costs approximately £1 million. The hon. Member for Colchester agrees with that. We must consider the overall figure. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) presents an intellectual challenge, but he must consider the issue in the round.
A point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham sums up the difference between the Government and the official Opposition on the issues that we are considering. In debates on previous clauses, the hon. Gentleman described victims of vehicle crimes as potentially suffering emotional scars. I do not disagree with his view, but I should like him to say that he understands and commits himself to dealing with those who suffer more serious emotional scars after losing loved ones.

Mr. Bercow: indicated assent.

Mr. Miller: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman accepts that. It is vital for the House to take a lead with policies that are unpopular with the wider public. People do not like speed cameras, but when they consider the full facts, they take a different view. The Government have got the new clause exactly right. It will provide another opportunity for the relevant authorities to maintain the pressure on road safety. I hope that, with the many other matters that the House must continue to tackle, the provision will contribute to a reduction in the approximately 3,000 deaths that occur on our roads every year.

Mr. Bob Russell: It is an honour for me to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), whose record on tackling the question of road deaths and crashes I admire. I concur with the points that he made.
I am disappointed that Conservative Members do not intend to force a Division on the new clause. Their language suggested that they were opposed to the new clause—or at least parts of it—yet they will not oppose it. In a way, I ought to be pleased that they will not, but there is nevertheless a conflict between their language and the lack of a Division.
I am also disappointed with the Government for not making it clear that all the moneys generated by the fines will be spent on road safety in the broadest sense. They are missing the opportunity to deal with road safety in the round by narrowing the proposal down to include only

speed cameras. I suggest that speed bumps in the vicinity of a school are a more effective road safety device than speed cameras.
The Government could have done more to spell out whether the money generated by the provisions of the new clause will be available in addition to what is currently spent. That was not said, and when something is not said, a degree of uncertainty can emerge concerning the Government's intentions.
Will the Minister give us a definition of a speed camera? Two kinds of camera could be described as income generators, in that their use can result in a fine—fixed cameras, and hand-held radar equipment. Recently, in a village in Cambridgeshire, I saw a different type of speed camera, whose use does not result in an offending motorist being fined. About two years ago, on the M25 in Kent, I saw a speed camera which flashed up a sign to inform drivers that they were breaking the speed limit. In the case of the camera in Cambridgeshire, if a car—or any other vehicle—exceeded the 30 mph speed limit, a sign flashed up "30 mph".
I understand, however, that the downside to those devices is that some motorists have been tempted to drive at speed to activate them. I suggest that we need a hybrid speed camera. If the object of the exercise is to reduce road deaths and improve road safety, rather than to generate income, we should ensure that vehicles do not speed in the first place. We need speed cameras that warn drivers that they are exceeding the speed limit. If they continued to do so, they would deserve a hefty fine, because they would have progressed from a yellow card to a red card, to use football terminology.
I urge the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and those who are gifted in the design and development of such technology to ascertain whether it would be possible to develop a speed camera that was both a warning device and a means of imposing a penalty.

Mr. Chidgey: My hon. Friend stirs the imagination with his concepts of developing the technology of speed cameras. Has it occurred to him that making speed cameras more visible might provide a greater deterrent? Perhaps they might attract attention more readily—and instil some caution into the motorists approaching them—if they were bright, fluorescent yellow, to continue my hon. Friend's football analogy.

Mr. Russell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestion. Speed cameras are at present a nice grey, which blends into the street scene.
There is no excuse for motorists speeding. The object of the exercise must be to reduce the speed of vehicles and the number of accidents. We know that 3,500 people are killed on our roads each year, and that the number of people injured runs to hundreds of thousands. We also know the cost to the public purse of all those road accidents. Surely it makes sense to prevent the speeding and the accidents from happening in the first place.
I agree with hon. Members who said that there must be a culture change. I was not helped when I received a letter from an organisation called the Association of British Drivers bearing the sub-heading "Promoting effective road safety instead of the criminalisation of safe driving", which states:
Unfortunately, the Speed Kills dogma … has the exact opposite effect".


I wonder what the Minister has to say about that.
I draw the House's attention to a worthy publication called Essex Safety Cameras, which contains the latest news about the Essex partnership and pilot schemes. If any hon. Members have not yet received a copy, I am sure that Essex county council, the Essex police or the Essex magistrates will be happy to provide them with one. The publication spells out the success of the pilot scheme, and if anyone needs to be convinced, they should read it.
The Association of British Drivers has a different view, however. It tells me:
Councils such as Essex have a deliberate policy of preventing both drivers and professional highway engineers from deciding what is a safe speed to travel at. Instead, completely unqualified local residents can choose, based on nothing but their own prejudices.
I find such comments regrettable in the extreme.
Speed is a contributory factor in many road deaths and road accidents. We do not know precise figures. If the Bill results in just one death being prevented, it will be worth while. However, I believe that it will result in many deaths and serious accidents being prevented. I therefore urge the House to support it. I also ask the Minister to consider incorporating a proposal that every penny generated by the new system should be spent on road safety in the broadest sense, in addition to moneys already earmarked for the purpose.

Mr. Efford: I want briefly to raise one or two points with my hon. Friend the Minister. I accept all the arguments about road safety, but I want to concentrate on the issue of abandoned vehicles, which is dealt with in this group of clauses.
I accept my hon. Friend's point about the flaws that may exist in new clause 5, but I want to raise the point about the cost to local authorities of dealing with abandoned vehicles. My hon. Friend said that the Bill would restrict its focus to fixed penalties. Abandoned vehicles attract fixed penalties. While we are dealing with issues such as vehicle registration, it would not require a giant leap to add not only the issue of speeding but that of abandoning vehicles by the roadside.
8 pm
The scrap value of such vehicles has disappeared, which is why we are experiencing this problem. Disposing of a vehicle properly costs money so perhaps we should ask vehicle manufacturers to cover the cost of disposal. Furthermore, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency cannot pursue an individual who has disposed of a vehicle on the roadside. It may ask, "Is this your vehicle? You are the last registered owner," but that person may reply, "No, I have sold it to somebody else—it is no longer mine." Even though the vehicle may be parked outside that person's house, the DVLA can do nothing about it.
I have pursued the issue with my local authority, which assures me that that is the case, but it is surprising that the DVLA has no power to pursue the last registered owner if that person states that he no longer owns the vehicle, even though he may not have returned the log book with a new owner's name on it or taken some such step. There are regulations in place that would allow the DVLA to pursue such individuals, but we must place the responsibility to

deregister a vehicle on the person disposing of it. We must impose strictures on the last owner, who should remain responsible for the vehicle—and, therefore, responsible for its disposal—until another person is registered as the owner.
Up and down the country, and in London in particular, council tax payers and local authorities face the huge expense involved in disposing of vehicles abandoned on the kerbside, and there are no comebacks on those who deny that they own such vehicles. There are more powers to deal with someone who disposes of litter on the street than with someone who disposes of a vehicle. Abandoned vehicles can be extremely dangerous as well as inconvenient and costly to the public purse.
I want to put my views on record and stress to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that there is an urgent need to take action. Abandoned vehicles represent a huge cost to the taxpayer and an enormous problem that will not go away unless we give powers to impose a cost on those who dispose of their vehicles in such a way.

Mr. Fabricant: Certain expressions come to mind when one thinks of the new Labour Government—hit the ground running, the people's Parliament, the people's dome and joined-up government, for example—but the new clause reveals not joined-up government, but turf wars between Ministers. Government amendment No. 43 will delete clause 37; it will be replaced by new clause 7. However, I shall speak to amendment No. 26, which stands in my name and, I am delighted and slightly embarrassed to say, that of the Liberal Democrats in the form of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), who served with us in Committee, and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), who, like me, is one of the seven chartered engineers who are Members of the House. It is always worth plugging that issue.
I listened to the argument presented by the Under-Secretary as to why the Government would not support my amendment, which and I must confess is a probing amendment that highlights certain issues that the British Motorcyclists Federation and I want to be known. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, under clause 37 and new clause 7, income derived from speed and traffic light cameras will be ring-fenced for road safety. We approve of that. However, we have tabled our amendment for a simple reason.
Under proposed new subsection (5) clause 37, speed and traffic light cameras will deal with the speed of vehicles, contraventions of restrictions on the speed of vehicles, temporary minimum speed limits, speeding offences generally and traffic light signals; but perhaps that sends the wrong message as to the cause of road traffic accidents, and I shall refer to analysis carried out by a number of institutions.

Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that time is short because of the programme motion. I shall not be making a speech so I am grateful to him for accepting my intervention. Does he recall that the Minister said that extending the offences relating to the amendment beyond speeding would introduce a distortion of justice in terms of the penalties inflicted? When he argues that moneys raised should be spread wider in terms


of road safety, will he address the point on which I sadly did not receive a satisfactory answer from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port (Mr. Miller)?

Mr. Stephen Pound: Ellesmere Port and Neston.

Mr. Chidgey: Somebody from somewhere, from a sedentary position, reminds me not to forget Neston.
Does the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) accept that, notwithstanding the overall cost of accidents to the economy, as such schemes become more effective and motorists become more law abiding in respect of speed, revenues, by definition, will fall? Consequently, there will be less money for such schemes.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman shows an engineer's logic, if I may say so. [Interruption.] A chartered engineer's logic, absolutely.

Mr. Chidgey: A fellow, even.

Mr. Fabricant: A fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers, I believe. Anyway, the hon. Gentleman displays sound logic. If the implementation of speed cameras is effective, there will be fewer offences and, therefore, less income. That makes one wonder whether there will be sufficient money for road safety programmes. One could go on with the argument and say that if there were no accidents one would not need a road safety programme, because the roads would be safe. I guess that everyone would like to achieve that.
To bring the House back to the amendment, I point out that considerable analysis has been undertaken of the characteristics of urban motor cycle accidents. They rarely have anything to do with speed. Keith Booth, of Modern Analytical Studies, Rochford, Essex, has done an analysis showing that 62 per cent. of accidents involving motor cycles, mopeds and scooters were primarily caused by other road user groups.

Mr. Bob Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fabricant: No, simply because we have to move on. There will be a vote at 8.30—

Mr. Heald: Oh!

Mr. Fabricant: I suspect that there will be a vote. We must at least end consideration on Report at 8.30 because of the draconian conditions laid down by the Government. I want to move on quickly to say that 50 per cent. of accidents involving motor cycles were caused by car drivers, 10 per cent. by pedestrians and fewer than 1 per cent. each by pedal cyclists, buses and coaches and heavy goods vehicles. Other causes—for example, animals running into the road—accounted for 3 per cent. while 35 per cent. were caused by motor cyclists, of whom 30 per cent. were on motor cycles and 5 per cent. on mopeds and scooters.
Any motor cyclist will say that motor cyclists have to drive carefully. A driver of a four-wheel vehicle will barely notice the small bounce as he goes over a pothole.

However, the rider of a motor cycle would be likely to fall off, causing considerable injury and considerable expense to the rider.
It is often the car driver who causes the accident. He may be executing a quick turn from the left or right, and, not looking in the rear-view mirror, he may not notice the motor cyclist. Motor cyclists tend to be rather safe on the roads, and the fact that a large percentage of them are involved in road accidents should not lead people to believe that they are causing accidents. In fact, car drivers are the main cause of motor cycle accidents.
According to Whitaker, Hurt and others, and according to "Transport Statistics Great Britain 1998", motor cyclists emerge badly, by comparison with other drivers, from the DETR's annual survey of drivers' observance of speed limits. However, Whitaker estimated that the speed of impact of the motor cycle in 93 per cent. of the 425 accidents in his British sample was under 40 mph, and that in 75 per cent. it was under 30 mph. My point is that accidents involving motor cyclists do not necessarily involve speed.

Mr. Bob Russell: Some do.

Mr. Fabricant: That is true.

Mr. Pound: And most do not.

Mr. Fabricant: Indeed, most do not. I am not sure of the statistic that the hon. Gentleman is using, but we should not belittle him for saying that. An obsession with speed on its own is a distortion of reality—a distortion of the truth.
Perhaps the most interesting findings were those of Carsten and others in 1989 with regard to careless driving. They were that
At the top-high level, major driver/rider factors were 'failure to anticipate'… or unable to anticipate…and 'failure to yield at junctions'". 
That is plain bad driving; it has nothing to do with speeding.
As I pointed out in an earlier intervention, and as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), the speed of a vehicle can of course kill, but the design of the vehicle will also affect its ability to kill. When a bull bar is fitted to a car or a four-wheel drive vehicle merely as a cosmetic device, that too can be a major contributory factor in the creation of a killing machine.
I am very conscious of the time. I am also very conscious of the draconian timetable set by the Government, and of the many other groups of new clauses and amendments that we wish to discuss. I shall therefore not press amendment No. 26 to a vote. I accept the Minister's point that if the issues raised in the amendment were included in the clause, pressure might be put on magistrates and juries to apply fines rather than disqualification or imprisonment. I hope, however, that the House has noted that speed is not the only issue, and that motor cyclists get rather a raw deal.

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) for not pressing his amendment to a vote. He made a well-informed speech, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham (Mr. Efford) and


for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). I am sure the House will agree, however, that we heard especially serious, expert and indeed creative contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), both of whom are distinguished members of RoadPeace. I am extremely glad that we have now heard the speech from the hon. Member for Colchester of which he was cheated in Committee.
8.15 pm
In our earlier exchanges, I remarked with a degree of awe on the fecundity and fertility of the mind of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I fear, however, that fecundity and fertility have now fallen into fantasy. It is preposterous to describe the provisions that we propose as a tax. New clause 7 provides for the money raised by fines to be used by local authorities for traffic matters. There is no taxation here. After all, the fines go into the coffers of central Government now. The provision is not a tax, but a penalty for an offence. Drivers who keep to the speed limits will not be affected; only those who break the law will be penalised.
As with so many road traffic measures—for instance, those to enforce bus lanes—we are dealing with the encouragement of compliance. We expect the number of fixed-penalty offences to fall as more drivers reduce their speed and observe traffic light directions: the Eastleigh proposition, in other words. We believe that fewer fixed-penalty notices will be issued, with a corresponding decrease in the amount of receipts. Increased compliance will also reduce the number of casualties. This will mean lower costs for the motoring community, and safer roads.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker(Mrs. Sylvia Heal): The Question is, that all remaining—I am sorry; we now come to new clause 2.

New Clause 2

IDENTIFYING MARKS ON VEHICLES

It shall be an offence for any person

(a) to be in possession of a motor vehicle or motorcycle which does not show a valid identifying mark, or
(b) to deface, remove or otherwise alter or attempt to alter a valid vehicle identifying mark;
and for the purposes of this Act a valid identifying mark shall be those numbers, letters or combination thereof marked on or affixed to the vehicle by the original manufacturer for the purpose of identification and so registered in the registration documents issued by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency or such other agency as shall be responsible for such registration.'. —[Mr. Chidgey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Chidgey: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I thought for a moment that I was about to be airbrushed out of the debate, cut off in my prime—and what a prime to be cut off in!
New clause 2 deals with the problem of identification of motor vehicles. Specifically, it proposes that it should be an offence for any person
to be in possession of a motor vehicle or motorcycle which does not show a valid identifying mark",
or
to deface, remove or otherwise alter or attempt to alter a valid vehicle identifying mark".
A key issue throughout the Bill's perambulations has been the traceability of stolen vehicles. Concern about that has been shared by members of all parties. In Committee, we had a number of detailed debates about how the Bill would help to strengthen the audit trail of vehicles and their parts, especially in the case of vehicles that were stolen and broken up so that their spare parts could be sold illegally. The new clause is intended to strengthen that audit trail by improving identification of vehicles: the onus would be placed on the purchaser of a vehicle to ensure that it bore an appropriate identification mark.
The new clause is particularly relevant to motor cycles. I am sure that Ministers will be familiar with—indeed, will have read avidly—a 1998 Home Office publication entitled "Nought to Nowhere in five Seconds—a guide to motorcycle security". It is not an election manifesto from any party that I would wish to name. [Interruption.] That publication—with which, as he has acknowledged from a sedentary position, the Minister is intimately familiar—stated that in the past three years, meaning from 1995 to 1998—

Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the title of the work—"Nought to Nowhere in Five Seconds"—is an abbreviated history of the Liberal Democrats?

Mr. Chidgey: I really should not have given the Minister that opportunity, but my generosity clearly knows no bounds. He will know that when I quoted that title, in my own mind I was thinking of the official Opposition. However, unlike the Minister, I thought it better not to make such a low, churlish and cheap political point. Clearly the Minister does not share my good nature, or perhaps my politeness towards other hon. Members.
That now notorious document, which I am sure will be mentioned in other contexts in future, shows that, in the past three years, 54,800 motor cycles—worth £55 million—were stolen and not recovered. However, the Motorcycle Industry Association's statistics tell a different story. They show that 25,000 powered two-wheelers are stolen annually, which is considerably more than is indicated in the statistics that the Home Office seems to think are correct.
Moreover, of those 25,000 vehicles, only 14 per cent. are recovered. It is a very revealing statistic when one compares it with the stolen car recovery rate, which is 60 per cent. Clearly, motor cycle theft is a growing and disproportionately serious problem. Information would therefore seem to be far more important in that context, to identify motor cycles, than it is in identifying stolen cars.
I am pleased to say that, although motor cycle theft is increasing, there is phenomenal growth in motor cycle sales, which demonstrates that powered two-wheelers are considered a very attractive alternative to car. All of us who have an interest in transport policy and in reducing pollution and congestion should welcome that growth.


Last year, 175,000 new powered two-wheelers were sold in the United Kingdom, which was the highest motor cycle and powered moped annual sales figures for 18 years. Moreover, since 1999, sales of those vehicles have increased by 10 per cent; and they are more than four times greater than they were only five years ago.
The huge growth in motor cycle ownership demonstrates just how important it is to tackle that sphere of vehicle crime. Unfortunately, however, the issue has so far been neglected in our debates on the Bill. As such vehicles become more popular and more numerous on our roads, and as opportunities to steal them off our roads increase, their theft, illegal possession or illegal disposal must be a growing concern.
As the Home Office recognised in its now infamous document "Nought to Nowhere in Five Seconds", it takes no more than five seconds to steal a motorcycle—to load it into the back of a van or to drive it away. Motor cycles are highly vulnerable to theft. Moreover, because there is no left or right-hand bias on a motor cycle, they are very attractive throughout the world market.

Mr. Bob Russell: Just like us.

Mr. Chidgey: The Minister may like to reflect on the fact that left or right does not encompass the third way, and that the middle of the road is a recipe for a rather serious accident but, perhaps that is a different story.
Organised criminals are responsible for stealing motor cycles to order, removing their registration plates, obliterating identifying marks and rendering them almost untraceable. Although police have the power to seize suspected goods, current legislation—such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—is insufficient if vehicle ownership cannot be proven. If it cannot be proven, the suspect goods have to be returned to the probably illegal owner.
New clause 2 would combat such crime directly by creating a new offence of possessing a vehicle without a valid identifying mark. It would place the onus on the legitimate purchaser of a motor car or a motor cycle to ensure that the vehicle carries the appropriate mark. Additionally, the mark conforms with the detail shown on the V5 form.
The new clause would also put the force of law behind current advice from trading standards officers and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. New clause 2 would underline the need for caution by any person acquiring motor vehicles of any description.

Mr. Hill: The offence that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) has proposed in his well-intentioned amendment is already catered for in legislation. Section 173(d) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it an offence for any person who—with intent to deceive—forges, alters or uses any plate containing particulars required to be marked on a vehicle that, in this instance, relate to the vehicle identification number, which is already required on motor cycles by statute.
The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is very well taken. However, for the reason that I have given, I very much hope that I can persuade him to withdraw his motion.

Mr. Chidgey: I can see that the Minister is in some haste, for purposes not connected with debating my new clause. However, as I do not wish to play unpleasant

games with the House, I shall take note of what he said and take a future legislative opportunity to check whether the facts that he elucidated are indeed correct—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) questions my doubting the Minister, but that is life.
I have listened to the Minister's comments, and in the spirit of those comments, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

INSPECTION OF PREMISES: PART II

'( )—(1) A justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorising a constable or (as the case may be) an authorised person to enter and inspect premises, provided that admission to the premises is reasonably required to secure compliance with the provisions of this Part, or to ascertain whether these provisions are being complied with.

(2) A constable or an authorised person may, if necessary, use reasonable force in the exercise of his powers under a warrant issued under subsection (1).

(3) A constable or an authorised person may at any reasonable time—

(a) require production of, and inspect, any registration plates kept at the premises; and
(b) require production of, inspect and take copies of or extracts from any records which the person carrying on business as a registration plate supplier is required to keep at such premises by virtue of this Part.

(4) A constable or an authorised person in seeking to enter any premises in the exercise of his powers under a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall, if required by or on behalf of the owner or occupier or person in charge of the premises, produce evidence of his identity, and of his authority for entering before doing so.

(5) Any person who obstructs an authorised person in the exercise of his duties under a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.'.—[Mr. Bercow]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bercow: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6—Inspection of premises: Part I—
'( )—(1) A justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorising a constable or (as the case may be) an authorised person to enter and inspect premises, provided that admission to the premises is reasonably required to secure compliance with the provisions of this Part, or to ascertain whether these provisions are being complied with.
(2) A constable or an authorised person may, if necessary, use reasonable force in the exercise of his powers under a warrant issued under subsection (1).
(3) A constable or an authorised person may at any reasonable time—

(a) require production of, and inspect, any motor vehicles or salvageable parts kept at the premises; and
(b) require production of, inspect and take copies of or extracts from any records which the person carrying on business as a motor salvage operator is required to keep at such premises by virtue of this Part.
(4) A constable or an authorised person in seeking to enter any premises in the exercise of his powers under a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall, if required by or on behalf of the owner or occupier or person in charge of the premises, produce evidence of his identity, and of his authority for entering before doing so.


(5) Any person who obstructs an authorised person in the exercise of his duties under a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.'.
Amendment No. 30, in clause 9, page 6, line 5, leave out clause 9.
Amendment No. 31, in clause 25, page 13, line 14, leave out clause 25.

Mr. Bercow: As hon. Members who served in Committee are aware, the arguments on the subject of the right of entry to and inspection of premises were well rehearsed in Committee, so there is no need to develop them now. Suffice it to say that, as far as we are concerned, the overweening power of the state to enter and inspect is already very great indeed. We are concerned about that. We believe that warrants should be required. It is not acceptable that entry should occur without them.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I commend the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on the exceptional brevity and clarity of his speech. Had we only experienced that in Committee and in all our proceedings on the Bill, we would be in a different position today.
As the hon. Gentleman said, we debated the matter exhaustively in Committee. I do not think there is any need to go through the discussions again. Deciding the circumstances in which warrants are needed and the circumstances in which they are not is simply a matter of balance of judgment. In our view, the introduction of the new clauses in this group is inappropriate as they require warrants to be obtained even in the case of registered premises. The Government consider it to be right that a registered business should be open to routine inspection by the enforcement authorities to ensure compliance with the requirements of the House.
Operators will have agreed to comply with the obligations imposed on them under the registration scheme, and it would make no sense to require warrants to be obtained for routine inspections to ensure that the scheme is in fact being adhered to. The Bill already contains a limitation on the power of entry and inspection to such times as are reasonable.
As I said, we have debated the matter at length. I am confident that the power of my rhetoric will have persuaded the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion, and I hope that he will do so. If not, I urge my colleagues to vote down the Opposition.

It being half-past Eight o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 326.

Division No. 92]
[8.30 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Boswell, Tim


Amess, David
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Brady, Graham


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Brazier, Julian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Beggs, Roy
Browning, Mrs Angela


Bercow, John
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Burns, Simon


Body, Sir Richard
Cash, William





Clappison, James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
McIntosh, Miss Anne


(Rushcliffe)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Collins, Tim
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Madel, Sir David


Cran, James
Malins, Humfrey


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Maples, John


Day, Stephen
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
May, Mrs Theresa


Duncan, Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Evans, Nigel
Norman, Archie


Faber, David
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Fabricant, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Page, Richard


Flight, Howard
Paice, James


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Pickles, Eric


Fox, Dr Liam
Prior, David


Fraser, Christopher
Randall, John


Gale, Roger
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gibb, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Gill, Christopher
Ruffley, David


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
St Aubyn, Nick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Shepherd, Richard


Green, Damian
Soames, Nicholas


Greenway, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Grieve, Dominic
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gummer Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


Hague, Rt Hon William
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Streeter, Gary


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Swayne, Desmond


Hammond, Philip
Syms, Robert


Hawkins, Nick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hayes, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Horam, John
Townend, John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Trend, Michael


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tyrie, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Waterson, Nigel


Jenkin, Bernard
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Key, Robert
Whittingdale, John


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Wilkinson, John


Lansley, Andrew
Wilshire, David


Leigh, Edward
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Letwin, Oliver
Yeo, Tim


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lidington, David



Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Loughton, Tim
Mr. Keith Simpson and Mr. James Gray.


Luff, Peter





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Ainger, Nick
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bennett, Andrew F


Allan, Richard
Benton, Joe


Allen, Graham
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Best, Harold


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Blackman, Liz


Ashton, Joe
Blizzard, Bob


Atherton, Ms Candy
Borrow, David


Austin, John
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Bailey, Adrian
Bradshaw, Ben


Banks, Tony
Breed, Colin


Barnes, Harry
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Barron, Kevin
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Bayley, Hugh
Buck, Ms Karen


Beard, Nigel
Burden, Richard


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Burgon, Colin


Begg, Miss Anne
Burnett, John


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Burstow, Paul


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Butler, Mrs Christine






Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cann, Jamie
Hancock, Mike


Caplin, Ivor
Hanson, David


Caton, Martin
Harvey, Nick


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Healey, John


Chaytor, David
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Chidgey, David
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clapham, Michael
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hendrick, Mark


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hesford, Stephen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clelland, David
Hill, Keith


Clwyd, Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Coaker, Vernon
Hope, Phil


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Cooper, Yvette
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbett, Robin
Howells, Dr Kim


Cotter, Brian
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cranston, Ross
Humble, Mrs Joan


Crausby, David
Hurst, Alan


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hutton, John


Cummings, John
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Illsley, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jamieson, David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davidson, Ian
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


(B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Denham, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Joyce, Eric


Donohoe, Brian H
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Doran, Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dowd, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Drew, David
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kemp, Fraser


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Khabra, Piara S


Efford, Clive
Kidney, David


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ennis, Jeff
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Etherington, Bill
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Feam, Ronnie
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lammy, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Lepper, David


Flynn, Paul
Leslie, Christopher


Follett, Barbara
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Foulkes, George
Linton, Martin


Fyfe, Maria
Livsey, Richard


Galloway, George
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gapes, Mike
Lock, David


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Love, Andrew


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
McAvoy, Thomas


Gerrard, Neil
McCabe, Steve


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
(Makerfield)


Godman, Dr Norman A
McDonagh, Siobhain


Goggins, Paul
Macdonald, Calum


Golding, Mrs Llin
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McFall, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McGuire, Mrs Anne





McIsaac, Shona
Sedgemore, Brian


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Shaw, Jonathan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McWilliam, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Singh, Marsha


Mallaber, Judy
Skinner, Dennis


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Martlew, Eric
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Snape, Peter


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Soley, Clive


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Spellar, John


Miller, Andrew
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mitchell, Austin
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steinberg, Gerry


Moore, Michael
Stevenson, George


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morley, Elliot
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle
Stoate, Dr Howard


(B'ham Yardley)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mountford, Kali
Stringer, Graham


Mudie, George
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mullin, Chris
Stunell, Andrew


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Temple—Morris, Peter


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


O'Hara, Eddie
Timms, Stephen


Olner, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


Öpik, Lembit
Todd, Mark


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Perham, Ms Linda
Touhig, Don


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pike, Peter L
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Plaskitt, James
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Pond, Chris
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pope, Greg
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pound, Stephen
Tyler, Paul


Powell, Sir Raymond
Tynan, Bill


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Walley, Ms Joan


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wareing, Robert N


Primarolo, Dawn
Watts, David


Prosser, Gwyn
Webb, Steve


Purchase, Ken
White, Brian


Quinn, Lawrie
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Rapson, Syd
Wicks, Malcolm


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Rendel, David
(Swansea W)


Robertson, John
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


(Glasgow Anniesland)
Willis, Phil


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Winnick, David


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Rooney, Terry
Wood, Mike


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Woodward, Shaun


Rowlands, Ted
Woolas, Phil


Roy, Frank
Worthington, Tony


Ruane, Chris
Wray, James


Ruddock, Joan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wright Tony (Cannock)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wyatt, Derek


Salmond, Alex



Salter, Martin
Tellers for the Noes:


Sanders, Adrian
Mr. Tony McNulty and Mr. Clive Betts.


Savidge, Malcolm

Question accordingly negatived.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 10

NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 6, line 37, after "affecting" insert "in a material particular". —[Mr. Pope.]

Clause 16

REQUIREMENT OF REGISTRATION FOR REGISTRATION PLATE SUPPLIERS

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 9, line 25, after "he" insert "—
(a)'.

No. 3, in page 9, line 26, at end insert—
'; and
(b) is not an exempt person.

(2A) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for—

(a) activities of a prescribed description to be treated for the purposes of this Part as not being activities which consist in selling registration plates;
(b) persons of a prescribed description to be exempt persons for the purposes of this Part.'. —[Mr. Pope.]

Clause 18

APPLICATIONS FOR REGISTRATION

Amendments made: No. 4, in page 10, line 20, at end insert—
'(2A) A person who, in making an application for registration—

(a) makes a statement which he knows to be false in material particular, or
(b) recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular,

shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(2B) Where an order under section 19(A1)(b) has effect in relation to a person who has been convicted of an offence under subsection (2A), no application for registration shall be made by that person under subsection (1) in contravention of the order.'.

No. 5, in page 10, line 23, leave out "19" and insert "19(1)".

No. 6, in page 10, line 23, at end insert—
'( ) A person who makes an application in contravention of subsection (2B) or (3) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'. —[Mr. Pope.]

Clause 19

SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION BY A COURT

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 10, line 26, at beginning insert—
'(A1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 18(2A) the court before which he is convicted may, instead of or in addition to imposing a fine, by order do either or both of the following—

(a) provide for the removal of any entry relating to him in the register;
(b) prohibit him from making an application for registration under section 18(1) within such period not exceeding five years as may be specified in, or determined under, the order.'.
No. 8, in page 10, line 27, after "Part" insert—
`(other than an offence under section 18(2A))'.

No. 9, in page 10, line 30, leave out "The suspension shall not" and insert—
No order under subsection (A1) or (1) shall'.
No. 10, in page 10, line 32, leave out "to the Crown Court".
No. 11, in page 10, line 34, at end insert—
'(2A) A court shall give notice to the Secretary of State of the contents of any order which has been made by it under subsection (A l) or (1) and which has effect.'.
No. 12, in page 10, line 35, leave out from "register" to "has" in line 36 and insert "—

(a) to give effect to any order of a court under subsection (A1)(a); or
(b) to reflect any suspension effected by an order of a court under subsection (1),

but may not do so until the order concerned'
No. 13, in page 10, line 37, at end insert—
( ) In this section "appeal" includes an application under section 111 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (application by way of case stated).'—[Mr. Pope.]

Clause 26

NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS: PART II

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 14, line 5, after "affecting" insert "in a material particular"—[Mr. Pope.]

Clause 27

OFFENCE RELATING TO COUNTERPART REGISTRATION PLATES

Amendments made: No 15, in page 14, line 21, leave out from "which" to end of line 22 and insert—
'is not a registration plate as a registration plate knowing that it is not a registration plate or being reckless as to whether it is a registration plate'.

No. 16, in page 14, line 26, leave out "selling counterfeit registration plates" and insert—
'activities which are unlawful by virtue of subsection (1)'.

No. 17, in page 14, line 29, leave out from "person's" to end of line 31 and insert "unlawful activities;".—[Mr. Pope.]

Clause 28

OFFENCE OF SUPPLYING PLATES ETC. TO UNREGISTERED PERSONS

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 14, line 36, after "person" insert—
'(other than an exempt person)'.—[Mr. Pope.]

Clause 30

INTERPRETATION OF PART II

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 15, line 13, at end insert—
' "exempt person" means any person who is an exempt person by virtue of regulations made under section 16(2A)(b);'.
No. 20, in page 15, line 26, leave out "and".
No. 21, in page 15, line 33, at end insert')—
'; and


selling registration plates" is to be construed in accordance with any regulations made under section 16(2A)(a).'. — [Mr. Pope.]

Clause 35

ACCESS TO CERTAIN MOTOR INSURANCE INFORMATION

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 20, line 2, leave out from first "by" to first "the" in line 3 and insert—
`regulation 10 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Regulations 1972 or by any subsequent regulation made under any corresponding power in'.

No. 23, in page 20, line 15, after "means" insert "—
(a)'.

No. 24, in page 20, line 18, at end insert—
`; or
(b) information relating to motor vehicles to which section 143 of the Act of 1988 does not apply or to any certificates or other documents issued in connection with such vehicles.'.—[Mr. Pope.]

Clause 37

FUNDING OF CERTAIN MAGISTRATES' COURTS' COSTS RELATING TO VEHICLE CRIME

Amendment made: No. 43, in page 21, line 9, leave out Clause 37.—[Mr. Pope.]

Clause 44

EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 45, in page 24, line 5, leave out "to 37" and insert—
`, 36 and (Unified power for Secretary of State to fund speed cameras etc.)'.

No. 25, in page 24, line 8, at end insert—
`( ) Section 35 extends to England and Wales and Scotland.'.—[Mr. Pope.]

Schedule

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 26, line 26 [The Schedule], leave out "59F(1) below" and insert—
`(Unified power for Secretary of State to fund speed cameras etc.) of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 (unified power for Secretary of State to fund speed cameras etc.)'.

No. 47, in page 26, line 32 [The Schedule], leave out "59F(1) below" and insert—
`(Unified power for Secretary of State to fund speed cameras etc.) of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001'.

No. 48, in page 26, line 36 [The Schedule], leave out "59F(1) below" and insert—
`(Unified power for Secretary of State to fund speed cameras etc.) of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001'.

No. 49, in page 26 [The Schedule], leave out lines 37 to 40.

No. 50, in page 26, line 43 [The Schedule], leave out "59F(1) below" and insert—
`(Unified power for Secretary, of State to fund speed cameras etc.) of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001'.

No. 51, in page 26, line 46 [The Schedule], leave out from beginning to "references" in line 48.

No. 52, in page 27, line 2 [The Schedule], leave out "59F(3) below" and insert—
`(Unified power for Secretary of State to fund speed cameras etc.) of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001'. [Mr. Pope.]

Title

Amendments made: No. 53, in title, line 3, leave out "Lord Chancellor" and insert "Secretary of State".

No. 54, in title, line 4, leave out from "certain" to "to" in line 5 and insert "expenditure relating".—[Mr. Pope.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I shall repeat some of the points that I made earlier when we discussed the programme motion. The Bill has been subjected to thorough scrutiny in Committee. I express my appreciation to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members who led that debate and to my colleagues who made constructive contributions throughout. As I said earlier, some aspects were less than constructive, but the overwhelming majority of contributions were positive in tone.
The Bill has emerged the better for its time in Committee. Helpful suggestions were made to improve it, and on Report we discussed some of the proposed changes, but its essential principles remain unaltered.
I shall assess the issues that arose over the guillotining and programming of the Bill. We moved a programme motion on the meetings of the Committee itself. It is generally acknowledged that a full debate was held in Committee; Members had the chance to make their case in the time available and the arguments were fully and substantially made.
That was less true for the programmed debate on Report, which we have just concluded, because four groups of amendments could not be discussed. The new clause on specifications of registration plates, tabled by the Opposition, had no relation to the Bill. The matter arose from the euro-fanaticism of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) who wanted to raise a marginal issue. The second group related to the scope of activities and persons covered in parts I and II. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be generous enough to acknowledge that the debate—like that on inspection of premises—would have been a reprise of the Committee debate, when we discussed the issues in great detail.
The third group related to fees for registration; again, we discussed that matter in detail and at great length in Committee.

Mr. Eric Forth: Some of us were not in the Committee. Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: I will give way, but first I will reply to the right hon. Gentleman's sedentary remark. During the debate on the programme motion, the hon. Member for Buckingham made the point that the purpose of the Report stage was to allow hon. Members who might not have been members of the Standing Committee, such as the right hon. Gentleman, to participate in the debate. Throughout the whole debate on Report, there was no participation from Conservative Members, apart from the


Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen, who were in constant attendance and participated fully in the debate; the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who was a member of the Committee, and also participated fully in this debate; and an intervention from another Opposition Member. Although it is true that, in theory, hon. Members should be able to discuss the measure—I acknowledge that—in practice, no other Members wanted to discuss the issues.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister, who daily demonstrates his lack of parliamentary experience, but I suppose he will learn—if he is spared to spend a bit more time in this place. The reality is that Report gives an opportunity to those Members who are not on the Committee to participate, if they choose so to do. I suspect that one reason why so few Members chose to participate is that the Government are not allowing a proper opportunity for proper debates on Report. The Government cannot have it both ways—they cannot crush all debate and then complain that hon. Members do not turn up to participate.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making his points, which are pretty familiar to the House. As I said in the debate on the programme motion, the difficulty, which is reflected in the exchanges that occurred just before I spoke, involves those on the Conservative Front Bench ensuring that hon. Members, such as the right hon. Gentleman, can operate through the usual channels. That is one of the key issues in the House. The right hon. Gentleman also makes some offensive remarks, which he is entitled to do, but I have attended fully throughout all the debates—perhaps ad nauseam—and have dealt with the issues raised by my hon. Friends, if not all those raised by Opposition Members.
The final group of amendments contained several technical amendments and a point of substance on the affirmative procedure, on which the hon. Member for Buckingham might have divided the House, but, as he will acknowledge, that matter was debated fully in Committee. I make those points, which are perhaps not fully relevant to Third Reading, because I am aware of the arguments made by Members such as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and want to place on record my belief that the debates in Committee and on Report have been constructive and positive. The debates in Committee took place within the time constraints of the programme resolution and were finished in a way that allowed all hon. Members to make their points.

Mr. Bob Russell: Almost all.

Mr. Clarke: We addressed that matter earlier.
Although we did not debate certain amendments on Report, my assessment is that the various points represent a reprise of the debates in Committee. Notably, few Opposition Members participated, other than those on the Front Benches and the hon. Member for Lichfield, to whom I give due credit.
The Bill is necessary because the public are greatly concerned about vehicle crime. It is a serious matter, and the statistics speak for themselves. Some 350,000 vehicles

are stolen annually, of which more than two fifths are not recovered. We are on target to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. over five years. It has already fallen by 20 per cent. since we took office. The Bill will help significantly to reduce it further and shows that partnership is a central precept of the Government's approach to reducing crime.
We established the vehicle crime reduction action team, whose membership included a broad cross-section of the vehicle industry, the police, motorists, local government and insurers. The team proposed a series of important recommendations, which the Government have sought to honour. One set of recommendations dealt with changes in the law, which is why we introduced the Bill. It is not simply a clever Government idea; it is the result of a considered and proper process—the model for developing such proposals.
The Bill will fill the gaps in the existing law. At present, stolen vehicles may find their way into a salvage trade that is quite unregulated, as may vehicles that are fraudulently reported to have been stolen. Criminals can all too easily get hold of false number plates to disguise such vehicles that come into their hands and others that they have stolen themselves.
Vehicles that have been written off may be repaired and put back on the road. They are not required to undergo any check as to their true identity. Some of those vehicles are of course stolen. Those problems are addressed in the Bill, which will cut the scope for profit from vehicle crime, so diminishing its appeal. As a result, we hope that there will be at least 39,000 fewer vehicle thefts and 6,000 fewer fraudulent insurance claims—so-called theft claims—each year.
The Bill will also extend the time limit for prosecuting the crime of unauthorised vehicle taking. It will assist the detection of uninsured driving, by giving the police the right of general access to the motor insurance database. It will make it possible for the money collected from fixed-penalty fines for speeding and jumping red lights to be directly applied to road safety in the ways that have been discussed.
Part I deals with the regulation of motor salvage dealers. More than 40 per cent. of stolen vehicles are not recovered. Criminals in the salvage industry can disguise stolen vehicles or break them up and sell them as parts. Vehicles may be reported stolen when they have been sold to the salvage trade. That is insurance fraud. Part I will require motor salvage operators to register with their local authority and to renew their registration at intervals.
Concern was expressed in Committee about whether applications to register could be made on a standard form. It would be possible to prescribe such a form in secondary legislation, and we acknowledge the suggestions that were made in Committee. We will consult local authorities and the industry fully on the regulations to be made, and standardisation will be discussed. The Committee also said that it might be necessary to have slightly different information-collecting methods for different types of business. It discussed that issue fully.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Buckingham and other Conservative Members suggested making it an offence to supply false information when applying to be registered. The House will have heard from the discussions on Report that we have taken that point on board. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that and I


acknowledged publicly the role that he played in drawing our attention so clearly to this issue. The suggestion has become a helpful addition to our measures to regulate the salvage industry.
Part I also enables us to make sure that registered dealers keep proper records. The police will have powers to enter and inspect their premises without a warrant. That will make it difficult to dispose of stolen vehicles, and it will deter insurance fraud.
Part II regulates the supply and issue of number plates. Many people are surprised to discover that there are no controls over this trade, and vehicle thieves naturally take advantage of that. However, the consequences of the current lack of regulation are by no means confined to vehicle theft. Burglars and terrorists use false plates; others use them just to deceive speed cameras. Under part II, number plate suppliers will have to register with the DVLA.

Mr. Fabricant: The Minister has raised an important point, but how easy is it to forge a number plate? Although many in the House may recognise the importance of controlling the manufacturers of number plates, if the plates can be forged easily by someone in his own home, that will negate the whole effectiveness of part II.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman raised that point fully and positively in Committee. I reinforce the point that regulations can be made under the Bill to specify further information to be held on number plates. That will make it difficult to forge plates or to disguise the identity of a vehicle. There will be a link between the information on the number plate and the vehicle for which the plate is intended. The specific purpose of the provision is to enable the Government to specify, after wide consultation, the form of the number plate, so that it is clear that every number plate meets certain criteria. I accept that forgery can never be outlawed, but it will be made a great deal more difficult. The identification that results from that will enable us to deal with vehicle crime more effectively.
The Bill also provides powers to make suppliers keep records, which should deter the purchase of plates for criminal purposes. Record keeping will provide an audit trail for the police, who will be able to enter and inspect registered premises without a warrant. It will be an offence to provide plates or materials to an unregistered supplier or to sell counterfeit plates. The Committee persuaded us that it should also be an offence to supply false information to the DVLA in an application to register. We have introduced proposals to that effect.
Part III deals with vehicle licensing and registration. There will be a compulsory identity check before the issue of a new registration document for a vehicle that has previously been written off. That should help tackle illegal tampering. Part III also targets uninsured driving, which can be associated with dangerous driving and other illegal activity, but is all too often undetected. To deal with the problem, the motor insurance industry has proposed, and the Bill provides, that the police should have bulk access to insurance information. We expect this access to be available from 2003.
Clause 36 lengthens the time limit for prosecuting so-called joyriders. Those who take vehicles without authority cause immense distress and may even become

involved in accidents. Joyriding sometimes leads to yet more serious crime. However, as the law stands, no charges may be brought for this offence more than six months after it was committed. We want the Crown Prosecution Service to be able to bring charges so as to signal that joyriding is not an offence that will be treated lightly.

Mr. Heald: We have just voted on a proposal to allow the Minister to determine that certain activities do not constitute the sale of registration plates. The Committee discussed whether manufacturers who do not sell directly to the public would be exempted. Does the Minister have that possibility in mind?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman asks a reasonable question, although I think that we covered it in Committee. The purpose of the proposals is to ensure that the Bill is targeted on the right people. We had a long discussion about people who deal in parts. The vintage bike industry was mentioned. The Committee tried to respect the needs of hobbyists by ensuring that the Bill did not become a sledgehammer that hit the legitimate activities of such people. That is why we wanted the sensitivity with which the Government always exercise their Executive powers to be enshrined in legislation.
Clause 36 will extend the time limit to three years and enable proceedings for taking a vehicle without authority to be brought at any time within six months from the date when sufficient knowledge came to the attention of the prosecutor.
A more widespread threat to public safety is speeding, which we debated at length on Report. Rolling out speed cameras nationally is a vital part of our road safety strategy. New clause 7 will allow the money that magistrates courts receive from fixed penalties for speeding or jumping red lights to be used to fund road safety. The funds will be ploughed directly back into the fight against road crime and our efforts to improve road safety. That will ensure that funding is available to increase the number and geographical spread of safety cameras, for example, which will aid the prevention and detection of speeding and red traffic light offences. As speeding drivers may be guilty of other offences, there will also be a wider crime reduction benefit.

Mr. Shaw: Will my hon. Friend's hypothecation pertain to motorways? Some 33,000 vehicles were found to be breaking the speed limit on the M2, which runs through my constituency.

Mr. Clarke: I saw the press coverage of the M2 speed cameras. Our proposal does apply to motorways. However, I must emphasise, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) did, that the process is about promoting road safety, and road safety alone. Some of the press coverage of the M2 cameras suggested that there might be a financial motive. That is not the case.

Mr. Bob Russell: The Minister said that the revenue from the fines would be used for road safety measures. How broad is the definition of road safety in that sense?

Mr. Clarke: I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary fully explained the situation on Report


Road safety will primarily focus on increasing the number and geographical spread of safety cameras. That is the principal consideration. I do not want to hide that fact from the House, but it does not exclude taking a wider look at road safety implications. Safety cameras make an important contribution to road safety and our proposals will extend to motorways.

Mr. Brady: The Minister told the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) that the cameras' primary purpose is to promote road safety. Is he clear that motorway cameras will focus on stretches where there are roadworks and lower speed restrictions, instead of being rolled out generally across all the network?

Mr. Clarke: I can confirm that the police identified and focused on accident black spots in the pilot schemes. It is intended that that practice should be followed across the country. The cameras might be related to roadworks and other restrictions, which might be temporary in nature. However, most police forces have a detailed mapping of where road accidents occur most frequently. They naturally want to put cameras at those locations, both to act as a deterrent, which the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) mentioned on Report, slowing drivers down at the key points of danger, and to record the drivers who break the law.

Mr. Brady: I thank the Minister for his full reply. Given that we would all wish to maximise the deterrent effect, can he confirm that it is the Government's policy, where possible, to ensure that signs to warn of the presence of speed cameras are in place on motorways?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and his colleagues in the DETR are considering carefully how we can improve the signage of road speed limits. The need for improvement has been forcefully pointed out by the AA and the RAC, and it is necessary to work harder to ensure that motorists are fully aware of the speed limit wherever they are. That is an important aspect of the road safety proposals that the Government are considering.
The operation of those proposals will be a matter for each local authority. My own county, Norfolk, has published a good road safety document, which is in my constituency file. I was reading it earlier because I want to respond to the authority's proposals for improving signage and policies. Road safety is the general thrust of local government policies, and they have been much encouraged by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and his colleagues in the DETR.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) was asking about the signs warning of speed cameras rather than of the speed limit itself.

Mr. Clarke: I am sorry if my answer was unclear. I was trying to refer to the specific signage for speed cameras and the more general signage for speed limits. When I drive, I find it frustrating to see a picture of a speed camera without a speed limit attached. Putting those

signs together is important. It is a matter not for me but for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and I know that DETR is working hard on that.

Mr. Fabricant: Do the Minister and the Under-Secretary agree that if there is to be more widespread distribution of speed cameras, there needs also to be a wholesale review of speed limits? In some cases, limits might need to be lower, but in others they may need to be higher.

Mr. Clarke: I was just consulting the oracle on this matter—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

Mr. Fabricant: Does the Under-Secretary drive?

Mr. Clarke: I do not know whether my hon. Friend drives. He is an outstanding Transport Minister, and the people of the country are fortunate to have him. The hon. Member for Buckingham made it clear that he did not use computers, but I do not think that that disqualifies him from being a Member of the House, even though in the modern information age, one might think that he would want to know what was going on around him in the world. Perhaps that is reflected in his contributions.

Mr. Bercow: The Under-Secretary is unassailable.

Mr. Clarke: I never use the word "unassailable". Unlike the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I have a lot of experience outside the House, if not in it, and I know that the word "unassailable", especially when uttered by Conservative politicians, should not be used in circumstances that pertain to any significant development.
In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Lichfield, the Government are developing our road safety strategy, which includes signage. Those matters are also being considered by individual local highways authorities. In my county, for example, the authority is specifically considering, among other things, a 20 mph speed limit in specific areas such as those surrounding schools.
I emphasise again that the focus of the approach is on improving road safety. As part of the national roll-out of the programme, the Government will issue guidance to local partnerships on signage for speed cameras. I can therefore make a stronger commitment than I did in my off-the-cuff response to the hon. Gentleman that the guidance on signage for speed cameras will include precisely the points that he raised.
It is the Government's intention to cut vehicle crime at the roots. That means reducing the market for stolen vehicles. We will do that by regulating the motor salvage trade and the supply of number plates, which is the Bill's main purpose. Vehicle identity checks and new requirements for documentation by the DVLA will reinforce the system of regulation. The Bill has three ancillary purposes: first, to extend the time limit for prosecuting so-called joyriders; secondly, to make it easier for the police to detect uninsured driving; and thirdly, to enable magistrates courts receipts to be directly applied to road safety.
The Bill has been closely examined in Committee and has been strengthened as a result. Its consideration by the House means that it will go to the other place in good


shape. We shall continue throughout its passage in Parliament to listen to constructive criticism, as we have tried to do in this House, and to consider changes if they will help to deliver the sound legislation to which we are committed. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Bercow: The Minister of State, Home Office had the temerity to criticise the Opposition for a poor attendance this evening. He demonstrated not only temerity but unwisdom, given the fact, to which I must refer at the outset, that the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who were all members of the Committee that examined the Bill, have toddled out of the Chamber and have not been present to hear the Minister of State make the case for the Third Reading. It ill behoves the Minister to chide us, to suggest indifference and to accuse us of being part-timers when his hon. Friends, who might have been expected gleefully to listen to his honeyed words, have absented themselves from the Chamber and possibly from the Palace.

Mr. Bob Russell: For the sake of accuracy, will the hon. Gentleman tell us what has happened to about 50 per cent. of Conservative Members who served in Committee, who are not with us this evening?

Mr. Bercow: Yes. I regret to say that to the best of my knowledge, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) is indisposed. That is why she is not present. What is important is that my hon. Friend has demonstrated on Second Reading, in Committee and on other occasions the closest possible interest in the Bill. I am sure that the Minister—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now get on with Third Reading rather than talk about the attendance or non-attendance of members of the Committee that considered the Bill.

Mr. Bercow: We were considering the level of interest on Third Reading. That would be fairly clear. I am developing the argument, and that is precisely what I intend to continue to do, as was my initial intention.
The Minister's recollection of proceedings in Committee does not entirely square with mine. It is true that the Government were guilty of the most extraordinary Horlicks in failing to determine that false applications to register as a salvage operator or registration plate supplier should be a criminal offence. We pointed that out to the Government, and to their credit they have belatedly accepted the point. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for the tribute that he paid. Beyond that, I do not agree with much that the Minister of State, Home Office said about our proceedings in Committee.
I accept that we made some progress. However, we were hurried and heavily circumscribed. There was inadequate time and we got through the proceedings only because the vast majority of Labour Members either had nothing to say or had something to say but were instructed in no uncertain terms by the powers that be not to say it.
I much regret that we are embarking on Third Reading after the most derisory and cursory consideration of the amendments and new clauses that were tabled on Report. There were eight groups and no fewer than 61 new clauses and amendments. By my recollection, we got through four groups. We really only considered three groups, although we voted on the fourth as well. Even if we include matters relating to the inspection of premises, we have covered in a desultory fashion only 38 of the new clauses and amendments, leaving a remaining 23 still to be debated, some of which were new clauses and amendments tabled by the Government.
In the circumstances, it is preposterous for the Minister to claim that there has been adequate debate on the Bill. I must emphasise, as the Government are seeking a Third Reading, that we think it profoundly unsatisfactory that there was such minimal consideration on Report. One of the reasons for that—I have made the point before and I have had no effective rejoinder to it—is that the Government, in their arrogant, imperious and inconsiderate fashion chose a timetable on Report. They did not consult, there was no discussion and we had no debate. We are being invited to give a Third Reading to a Bill the consideration of which on Report was scanty, to put it mildly. We did not properly get through even half of the groups of new clauses and amendments.

Mr. Forth: Can I try to lift my hon. Friend into a more optimistic frame of mind? Does he not agree that, as a result of the process that he accurately described, it is imperative that the House of Lords should give the matter the detailed consideration that the Government have not allowed it in this House? At the very least, a compensatory factor might then enter our parliamentary proceedings, so that for every occasion on which the Government denied the Commons the opportunity to examine a Bill properly the Lords had to do so in the utmost detail.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend is right. I have referred before, without embarrassment—and I do so again—to the symbiotic political relationship between us. What my right hon. Friend says is pertinent and I hope that it will be heard in another place. Our consideration of the Bill has been inadequate, although marginally less so as the result of deliberations in Committee—[Interruption.] I am bound to tell the Under-Secretary, who is chuntering from a sedentary position and not paying proper attention to what I am saying, that the Bill is better in spite of the Ministers and not because of them. Frankly, they were Tweedledum and Tweedledee in Committee, and did not achieve very much. I was grateful for their tribute to Conservative efforts, but we have seen only a modest improvement in the Bill and it is pitiful that we have made so little progress today.
I emphasise the fact that, traditionally, Members on both sides of the House have seen it as their responsibility to scrutinise, probe, inquire, test and seek improvement. In this case—and this is an important point in support of our claim that inadequate time has been dedicated to the subject—Conservative Members alone have played any significant part in the proceedings, together with a little input of variable quality and irregular frequency from Liberal Democrat Members. The only Labour Members to have contributed on any significant scale were those who themselves wanted to table new clauses and


amendments. The fact is that there have been few of them. The vast majority sat doing other things, were not engaged and did not take an interest. Their minds were elsewhere, to use a term that is common parlance in relation to other matters at the moment.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bercow: Yes, briefly, but I must warn the Minister that many points need to be made on Third Reading, and I intend to make them in detail and at whatever length is necessary.

Mr. Clarke: I wish to place on record the fact that the hon. Gentleman's remarks on the participation of Labour Members in Committee were simply untrue.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister. He is accusing me of telling an untruth, which is dangerous, especially as he is a senior, respected, important and ambitious Member with a full diary. He has great claims and hopes for the future, and it would be unwise for him to traduce me. 1 do not know what he knows but, by now, he ought to be aware that I have a fairly good recollection of who spoke at earlier stages of the Bill's consideration and who did not. I simply make the point that far more Government Members did not speak regularly in Committee than did. That is a matter not of dubiety or speculation but of recorded fact. If the Minister wants to have a wager with me about it, I shall be only too delighted.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend talked about the contribution of Conservative Members in Committee. The Minister himself said that it was a useful and important contribution. Does my hon. Friend share my unease at the continuing lack of scrutiny? By introducing a new clause, we filled a gaping hole in the Bill. The Bill was incomplete when it came to Committee. Does my hon. Friend share my unease about the fact that, because of lack of scrutiny, there may well be other giant loopholes through which criminals and lawyers will be able to pass?

Mr. Bercow: I am worried about that. I am even more worried when a rising Minister—or would-be rising Minister—complains to the House that had we had this or that debate, it would probably only have been a re-run of what took place in Committee. I made the point before and, for the avoidance of doubt, I remind the Minister now that the purpose of the exercise is for those who served on Committee to report to the House as a whole so that its wider membership can engage in the debate—as I know my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), to name but one, is ever keen to do. It will not do for the Government to behave in such a navel-gazing, inward-looking, selfish fashion by seeking to dismiss the claims of those who were not fortunate enough to serve on the Committee, but who wish to contribute to the consideration of the Bill. However, I am not to be diverted for a moment longer from focusing on the purpose of the Bill.
The purpose of the Bill—to cut car crime—is valid. It is the Bill's effectiveness in achieving that purpose which is uncertain, to put it mildly. The Minister of State, Home

Office, knows perfectly well that between March 1998 and March 1999, 1,482,889 car crimes were committed. In the ensuing year, from March 1999 to March 2000, there was, if I remember correctly, a reduction of exactly 7,000 car crimes, so the incidence of car crime fell by 0.5 per cent. in that period.
The Minister of State and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions are committed to the goal of a 30 per cent. cut in car crime between now and 2004.
I am ordinarily an understated fellow, as you know from your own experience, Madam Deputy Speaker. I tend to beat about the bush. I am not very good at putting my points strongly. I sometimes think that if only I spoke up and made the argument a little more forcefully, I might have a greater impact. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst rather unkindly accuses me of being wet and weedy, but he is probably justified in this case.
I put it on the record that I wish the Government well in achieving the 30 per cent. reduction in car crime by 2004, but do I believe that it will happen? I am bound to ask the Minister of State, who may have trotted off elsewhere by 2004, "What are those pigs that I see flying in front of my very eyes?" I do not believe that that target will be achieved. The notion that the Bill will be instrumental in achieving that purpose strikes many of us as a triumph of optimism over reality.
The Minister drew attention to the incidence and cost of car crime. That is germane to the consideration of the Bill. There is an annual cost of £3.5 billion arising from car crime. The hon. Gentleman speaks glibly of the intention to ensure that there are 39,000 fewer vehicle thefts as a result of the provisions of the Bill, but he failed at any stage—on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report or on Third Reading—to explain how that objective is compatible with or delivered by the reduction of at least 2,500 in the number of policemen. It is extraordinary that the Government expect more with less: fewer people must satisfy higher targets, but there is no indication how those are to be achieved.
Another problem in relation to the Government's target, and a lacuna in the Bill, if I may satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, is that it does nothing about thefts from vehicles, concerning itself exclusively and perhaps narrowly with the theft of vehicles. If the Minister of State wants to trumpet the Bill as a flagship measure for the greater good not only of the community, but of his rising ministerial reputation, it is a pity that the terms of the Bill have been so narrowly drawn. The Minister is getting itchy. Although there are many other points and other lacunae to which I want to draw attention, I give way to him.

Mr. Charles Clarke: It would be helpful to the House if the hon. Gentleman set out the legislative changes that he would recommend to deal with thefts from vehicles. Our overall strategy deals with thefts from vehicles, but the Bill deals with one aspect of that strategy. What are the hon. Gentleman's proposals for legislative change?

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman tempts me into a potentially lengthy lecture on the subject. If I embarked upon it, he would be the first to complain. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position.


A useful signal that we could send to those who engage in car crime of the kind to which I have just referred would be immediately to scrap the home detention curfew scheme or the early release scheme—that ludicrous policy that entitles anyone serving a sentence of more than three months but less than four years to be released from jail on a tag, typically having served less than half of his or her sentence.
I sense that you are getting itchy, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is an undesirable prospect for you, as well as for hon. Members who think that you may be about to pounce upon them, if I may put it that way. I shall not dilate further, as you would not want me to do so. I was led astray by the Minister of State and I must not pursue the point, although I must say that it is unwise of the hon. Gentleman to make interventions that invite further and legitimate criticism of other aspects of Home Office penal and sentencing policy.

Mr. Brady: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that one of this Government's characteristics is their tendency to announce policies or to take legislative measures when they believe that the results will be achieved regardless of their actions? May they not have decided that vehicle theft will decrease because of technological improvements, not least in the security devices built into cars? May they not have concluded that results would accrue on theft of vehicles without their intervention? On the other hand, they have no meaningful policy to address the problem of thefts from vehicles.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend makes a sound point, to which I suspect the Minister of State cannot respond.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bercow: Well, I shall give the hon. Gentleman one last chance. Perhaps not. He now appears to have had second thoughts.

Mr. Clarke: rose—

Mr. Bercow: He now has third thoughts. As he is an ambitious chap, I warn him that such indecisiveness is inconsistent with the tributes that have so far been paid to him.

Mr. Clarke: With all respect, I point out that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) was confusing thefts from vehicles with thefts of vehicles. Technology makes a difference with regard to both sorts of crime. With regard to thefts from vehicles, the most important changes have occurred in vehicle security, in respect of which we are encouraging manufacturers and have introduced various other changes. As the hon. Gentleman said, those changes will reduce vehicle crime as the motor fleet becomes larger.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister, who has clarified his position in so far as he judged it necessary to do so. I shall not get into a debate about prepositions at this stage, not least because a number of my hon. Friends want to contribute.
Suffice it to say that the Opposition are anxious about a serious issue that relates to the integrity—or otherwise—of the Bill. That issue is, of course, the use of the proceeds of fines to finance a widespread roll-out of speed cameras throughout the country. An interesting exchange about that subject occurred earlier between the Under-Secretary and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, who has sadly departed the Chamber. Knowingly or otherwise—a term that I use advisedly—the latter seemed to be pressurising the Minister. He asked him to confirm that all fine proceeds must be used for road safety measures, as doing otherwise would be defying the will of the House.
Rather too quickly, and with too great an enthusiasm, the Under-Secretary rushed to agree. I then challenged him to confirm that it was Government policy to ring-fence. I sought a commitment that there would be an exact equivalence between the money raised and the money spent. I did not ask for a commitment in respect of every year, but for the five-year term of a Parliament, although I acknowledged that it would last for only four years if the Government cut and run. I demanded an assurance that all the proceeds of the fines would be spent on road safety measures alone.
That was when the Under-Secretary's usual self-confidence and unfailing fluency collapsed and he started to use a combination of the obfuscatory and the coy. He was obfuscatory as he sought to get away from the issue, and coy in the charming manner with which we are now familiar. In effect, he said "Oh, I am but a junior Minister and it is not a matter for me. Hon. Members cannot expect me, as a mere junior Minister, to commit to what might happen in future, although I can speak in general terms about what we want to do."

Mr. Heald: In due course.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend observes that things will occur in due course. Indeed, it was on that point that the Under-Secretary's previously silky advocacy became nothing more than a celebration of motherhood and apple pie. That issue has not been properly considered. My hon. Friends and I do not intend to divide the House on Third Reading. I have already been subjected to verbal flagellation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who is disappointed and strongly opposes the Bill and who believes that we should take a more oppositional line.
However, I am fair minded, and prepared even now to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. Given the Bill's risible consideration in Committee, the other place will want to scrutinise the provisions in great detail. There is therefore at least an argument for keeping an open mind.
Speed cameras and the Government's integrity or lack of it on that subject are important. Their attitude to local authorities' responsibility for disposing of abandoned vehicles shows them indulging in an orgy of complacency—a complacency displayed not least by Back-Bench Labour Members.
Let us consider inspection of premises, which the Bill covers. I am a right-wing libertarian, sometimes known as a Conservative libertarian. I am alarmed by the constant arrogation of powers to the state. I do not like the fact that so many officers of the state, public agencies and


other officials can, without warrants, enter and inspect commercial premises, domestic property or both in pursuit of their claims. That is unsatisfactory. I generally support the view that, when police or other authorities want to inspect and consider evidence to ascertain whether criminal acts have been committed, they should first be obliged to obtain a warrant.
The Government's position is that warrants neither should nor should not be required. They have an extraordinary attitude, which is neurotic, difficult to justify in theory and impossible to substantiate in practice. Under the Bill, registered motor salvage operators or registration plates suppliers have somehow signed up to a more rigorous regime, and are able to have their premises entered by a police constable or other authorised person without a warrant. Those who are not registered and are suspected of unlawful or perhaps even criminal activity can have their premises entered and inspected only if the constable or other representative of authority has first acquired a warrant. The registered person therefore gets a worse deal than the unregistered person.
That is the logic of new Labour in 2001. No amount of vacuous half-hearted attempts at explanation by the two highbrow characters who represent the Government on the Treasury Bench could alleviate our anxieties about the provisions on inspection of premises.
The Government's performance on the specifications for registration plates was even more pitiful. Many of us are worried that the current drafting of clause 33, especially proposed new section 27A(1)(a) and (b), could allow for the mandatory display of a European Union flag on the registration plate of a car. We debated that matter at reasonable length in Committee. I enjoyed the exchange with the Under-Secretary, my former constituent when I was a Lambeth borough councillor. However, the same technique was employed as on previous clauses.
The Under-Secretary tried to brush our argument aside; he dismissed it with a good deal of rhetorical tomfoolery. However, when I challenged him to guarantee that the British Government would oppose any proposal to require the display of the EU flag, he retreated into obfuscation and coyness. He said that I was paranoid and that I was getting too excited. He then used the modesty defence, claiming to be only a humble servant, a mere Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, a son of toil who could not question the judgment of the Secretary of State, still less that of the Prime Minister.
The Under-Secretary also had the brass neck to say that I could not commit the Conservative party to opposing such a proposal. The hon. Gentleman then conjured up an absurd scenario in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was suddenly the leader of the Conservative party. I said that, although I did not anticipate such a scenario, it was conceivable that if such a scenario arose, my right hon. and learned Friend might—though I doubt it—be so unwise as to agree to such a proposal. I also made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that no such proposal would be advanced with my support from the Conservative Front Bench, from which I would immediately feel it necessary to depart in such circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman made no such clarion call, and no such obvious declaration. The risk is that, in future, a proposal could be introduced and the purpose of

clause 33 would be to facilitate the ready transposition into British law of the provisions that the hon. Gentleman's European masters intended.
The hon. Gentleman argued that any fees to be levied would cover only administration costs. However, when we tabled amendments that would tie the Government down more precisely, so that no stealth taxes could be levied, the hon. Gentleman resisted them. He engaged in the merest casuistry to try to justify his position and argued that the wording in the Government's existing, unamended clause was preferable to ours. I therefore asked the hon. Gentleman to confirm that the charges levied would never be greater than the level of the administration costs, at which point we had the normal retreat into obfuscation and coyness. I received no answer, no satisfaction and no reassurance. That was not good enough.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend reminds me—although this was not my reason for intervening—that, on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) boasted about such stealth taxes being used to build car parks in her constituency.
Why is my hon. Friend so surprised at the Minister's refusing to guarantee that the European Union flag would not be put on to licence plates? Does he not recall that, although the Labour party in opposition said that it would object to having the European Union flag put on to the credit card-type driving licences, all driving licences now bear the European Union flag?

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the tergiversation of the Government on matters European. They have changed their mind seven times on the issue of whether the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union. It is not, therefore, surprising that the Government are as inconsistent in this important but secondary matter as they have shown themselves to be in the past.
The Government's position on this issue is unsatisfactory. The hon. Gentleman was invited to provide reassurance, and he conspicuously and repeatedly failed to do so. I fear the worst. I do not suspect the hon. Gentleman's integrity, but he is—as he has already suggested—but a puppet on a string. The puppet-master is elsewhere, and we have good reason to fear an obnoxious proposal being introduced in the future which it would not be feasible for us effectively to resist.
One of the most unattractive features of the Bill is that nine of its clauses provide effectively for government by regulation. I am a strong supporter of the affirmative resolution procedure, and highly resistant to the over-zealous use of the negative resolution procedure. To elucidate that point for those who may be listening to our proceedings elsewhere, the issue is whether we debate the regulations or whether they go through on the nod.
The hon. Gentleman sought to justify the fact that the Government did not intend to debate these matters by saying that they were not big enough, and that such debate would not be a proper use of parliamentary time. I responded that the Government have often made a mess of regulations that have not been debated in the House, and, as a consequence, have had to return to the House to improve the regulations and seek the House's approval for that redrafting. The Government could save themselves a


future headache if they were more tolerant of present debate. It is most unfortunate that they are taking this dismissive, imperious and arrogant attitude towards the House.
My right hon. and hon. Friends may ask, "What's new?" That attitude is not new, but it is unsatisfactory, worrying and indicative of the Government's disdain, indifference and contempt for the legislature's right to act as a check on the Executive. That right and responsibility is of the greatest importance to me and my right hon. Friends, even if it is not important to high-flying, very ambitious and, if I may say so, somewhat indifferent Ministers.
The Bill involves substantial costs and the Government have estimated them, though their estimates usually turn out to be on the low side. I have been very generous—

Mr. Forth: Too generous.

Mr. Bercow: From a sedentary position, my right hon. Friend chunters that I have been too generous. He does not think that I have been robust enough and believes that we should divide the House on Third Reading. I am resisting his exhortation to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and I have made the judgment that we shall look to the other place properly to scrutinise all the provisions with a view to their further and dramatic improvement.
I am happy to await the outcome of the deliberations of the other place. Nevertheless, although the Bill is slightly improved, it has many defects. It is the cause of real concern. It is not satisfactory. [Interruption.] The Minister of State can chunter dismissively from a sedentary position, but he cannot disregard the fact that many things were wrong with the Bill, that it still has defects and that substantial progress still has to be made.

Mr. Chidgey: I shall draw myself back to the topics that I would hope to discuss on Third Reading, although that is quite an effort following such an interlude.
I must place on record my disappointment with the debate. Considering the number of amendments and new clauses that were tabled, we barely scratched the surface of much of the agenda. The Minister, in his winding-up speech on Report, made an effort to explain the substance of the various amendments that were not covered, but that is no substitute for proper examination and the ability to reassure the House about the meaning of Government amendments.
We have been denied an opportunity properly to scrutinise many amendments tabled not only by the Government but by the two Opposition parties. I am particularly disappointed not to have debated amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29, which stood in my name. I know that the British Motorcyclists Federation was interested in those proposals because they covered theft, which is a theme throughout. However, although the Bill concentrates on motor vehicle theft, there are few references to the theft and illegal resale of spare parts, which is a matter of great concern in many quarters that would have appreciated a proper discussion of the issues.
I am quick to say that, in the main, the Bill is welcome. It is clearly intended to have an effect on vehicle crime, and I believe that it will do so. I agree with the Minister

and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who spoke for the Conservatives, that the Bill is better than it was on Second Reading. However, we should put its effect in context. The Minister mentioned the number of cars that are stolen and rightly said that the measure will stop the ringing of cars. However, one must remember that even though the Bill may reduce vehicle thefts by 36,000, a total of 350,000 vehicles are stolen in this country every year, and such a reduction represents a mere 10 per cent. of that.
Although we should welcome this brief Bill, which will have some effect, we must bear in mind the context. It is not a panacea nor the answer to vehicle theft and vehicle crime. For example, it will make no impact on the 130,000 vehicles that are stolen, recovered and recorded as recovered. Of course, those vehicles are often wrecked beyond repair and of no use. Nor will it make an impact on the 700,000 thefts from vehicles every year, which the hon. Member for Buckingham touched on. Those 700,000 thefts are, of course, only recorded thefts. Other sources claim that the total number, unrecorded and recorded, is about four times that figure—close to 3 million.
The Bill will have no impact on spiralling motor cycle theft: the current rate is 25,000 a year, and increasing rapidly. Nor will it have an impact on the organised criminal trade in car and motor cycle spare parts, which is estimated to cost the economy five times as much as vehicle theft.
Much more needs to be done to prevent the theft of vehicles and parts. As the Minister said in response to an intervention, we need to do far more to make vehicles more secure and more readily traceable, but we also need to do far more to change the culture. As I think was said on Second Reading, we must recognise that there are areas in which communities are disruptive, crime rates are high and, consequently, the rates of vehicle thefts and thefts from vehicles are also high. It is not enough to encourage vehicle manufacturers to make their vehicles more secure; better policing must be provided in the areas that are most prone to theft.

Mr. Fabricant: I have just noted a statistic. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that between 6 million and 7 million plates are issued every year? Can he imagine how a diminishing police force could possibly regulate that area, in practice?

Mr. Chidgey: I generally welcome interventions from the hon. Gentleman. Because we share a profession, I always feel that it would be churlish not to listen to his contributions, whatever their worth may be. Perhaps he should refer to the debate on Second Reading, when I drew attention to the manufacture of between 6 million and 7 million plates every year. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would listen for a minute, he might get the benefit of my explanation. I speak from memory, but I think that some 2 million new plates are manufactured every year, and some 2 million are used for transfers in the trade. On Second Reading, I asked what happened to the other 2 million. I found it incredible that as many plates were damaged as were distributed for new cars and transferred in the trade.
That is, of course, the whole purpose of the new legislation on the regulation of manufacture and distribution of registration plates. It is a welcome feature


of the Bill, but it can only be aimed at preventing the ringing of cars, which involves a mere 36,000 of the 375,000 vehicles that are stolen each year.
There are still fears in the motor cycle industry that the Bill does not address the vulnerability of motor cycles to theft. The Motorcycle Action Group, the British Motorcyclists Federation and the Motor Cycle Industry Association have all expressed strong, well-thought-out and genuine concerns about the lack of protection for motor cycle owners. They are dismayed that the Bill's aspirations are so limited.
While car theft is falling—although at a far lower rate than the Prime Minister would wish, judging by his projections relating to targeted vehicle crime—the theft of motor cycles, and the trade in stolen parts from them, is rising dramatically. According to the RAC Foundation, it rose by some 25 per cent. in the last 12 months alone. The Association of Chief Police Officers has estimated that the value of stolen spares from motor cycles in circulation is about £400 million. That is a significant measure of the seriousness of motor cycle theft and the theft and circulation of spares.
The Bill is very limited in its aspirations. However, so far as it goes and in what it aims to achieve, it is welcome. As the Minister explained, part I will extend statutory regulation to motor salvage, reduce the opportunities to dispose of stolen motor vehicles and assist police in their investigation of vehicle thefts. Those are necessary and welcome provisions.
Part II has highlighted throughout our debates the shambles of vehicle registration plate manufacture and distribution. There are 27,000 outlets supplying up to 7 million plates annually. Clearly that needs regulation.

Mr. Fabricant: It is a shambles?

Mr. Chidgey: Yes.

Mr. Fabricant: Why?

Mr. Chidgey: I do not think that I will bother with that type of sedentary comment. The hon. Gentleman must be a little tired. He has been in the Chamber for most of the debate, unlike many of his colleagues. I think that we should make allowances for that.
We hope that, as amended, part II will go some way towards bringing order out of that particular chaos.
As for part III, the new laws on vehicle licensing and registration and on raising standards should provide a more effective way of tackling vehicle crime, particularly—as the Minister said on many occasions—in eliminating the ringing of stolen cars.
New clause 7, which is now clause 37, deals with a matter of great debate, concern and, sometimes, contention. Allowing fines from speed camera offences to fund the costs of extending the system and improving road safety is of course welcome. There is also clear evidence that reducing speed, particularly in dangerous locations, improves road safety. There is, however, a caveat. That funding should not be used as a way of proliferating speed cameras regardless of the need for, and benefit of, more cameras. If that happens, the effectiveness of speed cameras and their impact on improving safety will be reduced.
The Ministers will recall that, in Committee, various issues were raised to which they offered to return, with amendments, on Report. I have not heard replies to those points in the Government's amendments, perhaps because we have had so little time for today's debates. I shall therefore mention two of them again, to which the Ministers can reply either now or later.
I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), will remember our discussion on what happens when salvage operators cease to trade. What happens to their records? Who is responsible for collecting and storing them? Those records are necessary if we are to maintain an audit trail, which is so important in tracing vehicles. In Committee, we accepted that it was unfair to expect the Minister to have an immediate reply on that point. However, he will remember that he recognised that it was an important point and said that he would return to it. I do not think the point has been dealt with in any of the amendments that we have debated today, although we have not debated all of them.
The Minister may also recall that, in Committee, we raised the issue of stolen cars that are covered only by third-party insurance. As such cars are not covered for theft and no claim is made when they are stolen, they do not become a part of the insurance companies' written-off trail and simply disappear. In Committee, I expressed very strong concerns about how we can close that loop and catch those who steal the vehicles. As I understand it, about one third of all damaged vehicles fall into that category. Perhaps the Government's amendment No. 22 has addressed the issue. However, as hon. Members will know, we have not had the opportunity to debate that amendment.
I look forward to the Minister's response.

Mr. Forth: This measure tells us a lot more about Front Benchers in the House than it does necessarily about its specific provisions. It is a typical Labour response to a problem. The arrangement of clauses at the beginning of the Bill includes the tired litany of words and phrases such as "registration", "keeping of records", "right to enter and inspect premises", and so on. Unbelievably, the Bill suggests that local authorities should judge whether a company is fit and proper to conduct its business.
That is bad enough, but clause 32 says all that needs to be said about Labour's approach to a problem. In that one clause, 10 stages of bureaucracy, intervention and regulation can be identified. They are what the Government seem to believe will solve all the problems in this area. The clause mentions "notification", "issue of duplicates", "correction of errors", "payment of fees", "making of appeals", "carrying out of examinations", "courses of instruction"—

Mr. David Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman leading up to advocating the well-known Conservative approach of market testing? Under that regime, private firms could bid to provide the registration service that he describes. Perhaps Arthur Daley would be an appropriate person.

Mr. Forth: That is a very attractive suggestion. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the great world of


market economics, but my point is this: although I would expect from the Government the bureaucratic, regulatory and interventionist response to problems that this Bill contains, I am very disappointed to find that it has the support of hon. Members on my own party's Front Bench. I thought that I belonged to a party that believed in the operation of the market, in enterprise, in small businesses, and which was against the nanny state. The Bill is a monument to the nanny state, if I ever saw one, and I find it unbelievable and inexcusable that my hon. Friends have been prepared to accept it.
It appears that the official Opposition are increasingly prepared to accept measures such as this, for reasons that are unclear to me. Perhaps I shall have a word with my hon. Friends after the debate to see whether I can find out what on earth is going on.
Presumably, we shall have a chance to start opposing the Government's approach—perhaps not in connection with this Bill, but with some other. It is interesting that those who toiled through the Committee stage and who sat through Report spent a lot of time identifying weaknesses that remained in the Bill and in the Government's approach. The Government assert over and again that they want to support and encourage small business, but this measure, through the mountain of regulation that it proposes, can only damage new, small and struggling enterprises. The Government have not yet been able to resolve that apparent dilemma.
The Bill poses a challenge to the Government and to the Opposition. Have either thought through all the implications of the measures for which they so readily reach? The tired ideas of registration, endless record-keeping, inspections, examinations, tests, expenses, fees, charges and all the rest may or may not go some way towards resolving the problem that has been identified. However, I have heard nothing in our debates of the adverse and negative effects that the Bill is likely to have.
Bureaucracy will not suffer—the Bill will be yet another of the Government's job-creation schemes, creating even more bureaucrats, officials and inspectors. Whether there will be enough police officers to implement the Bill effectively is another matter, but it will certainly provide more bureaucrats. The one growth area that can be identified is officialdom—the Bill will fail in its adverse effect on small businesses.
This is a matter of regret to me. I wish that I could divide the House to oppose the Bill. Regrettably, on this occasion, I can only give vocal expression to my opposition to the Bill and hope that next time my right hon. and hon. Friends will do better.

Mr. Charles Clarke: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to respond to a couple of points.
First, I note that all Members who wished to speak in the time allocated to the Bill have been able to do so, thus fulfilling the proposition in the programme motion. Secondly, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will write to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on the points he has raised, because I do not have time to reply to them now. Thirdly, I simply make the observation that the deep division in the ranks of the official Opposition on whether to oppose the Bill shows their position.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved. —[Mr. Dowd]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Motion made,
That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Hon. Members:: Object.

Orders of the Day — SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:

Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.

Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.

Line 48, at the end insert the words:—
`(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Dowd.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Motion made,
That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session—[Mr. Dowd.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION

Ordered,
That Mr. Stephen Hepburn be discharged from the Administration Committee and Caroline Flint be added to the Committee.— [Mr. Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — Adoption

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Dowd.]

Dr. Vincent Cable: I am very grateful to have this opportunity to debate the criteria for adoption and, in particular, appeals. There is a great deal of activity regarding this subject in the media. In addition, the Government have produced the performance and innovation unit report, the White Paper and the ministerial statement. A great deal of attention is being paid to the issue.
Along with many other hon. Members, my focus has been narrowed, to some extent, by my experience of constituency cases. Very often, adoption cases arouse great emotion among the families concerned and among the wider media when they get into the public domain. I started life in the House with a difficult case that brought to a head issues of age bars and overseas adoption. The case was satisfactorily resolved through the intervention of the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, now the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). The right hon. Gentleman intervened personally and resolved the case to the family's satisfaction and happiness.
More recently, my constituency has been the centre of attention in a high-profile adoption case. There have been weekly serials in The Mail on Sunday and a great deal of television attention, much of it very distressing. I do not wish to go into the pros and cons of that case because an independent inquiry has been set up. Indeed, it is partly with the help of the Minister and his officials that the inquiry is taking place, and it would be wrong of me to pass judgment on the rights and wrongs of the case. That case, along with others with which I and other right hon. and hon. Members have dealt, illustrates some of the problems in the process.
I can put my specific remarks in a more general context. The Government have produced a White Paper, based on the Cabinet Office report and the Prime Minister's personal intervention in the matter. All the feedback that I have had from the adopting community—the adopters, the professionals and the social workers—is very positive. It is felt that a lot of progress has been made and that many of the policy prescriptions that have been offered are extremely helpful.
We are in a very positive environment—the one cloud on the horizon is that we have been here before. As the Minister knows, the 1993 White Paper expressed—probably less well than the present one—many of the hopes for future legislation. However, that White Paper never became legislation. I sincerely hope that the current White Paper does not go the same way. The Minister is not the master of parliamentary business—none the less, the context is positive.
I wish to start with a general proposition. It might help to promote the ideas in the White Paper if a little more support were given to the role of the adopters and, as a separate group, the foster parents who work on a paid basis for local authorities. There is a clear and positive statement in the White Paper and the associated regulations as to the primacy of the child. That is absolutely right; the language is spot-on and none of us

would have any quibbles about it. However, the "Introduction to prospective adopters" in the draft adoption standards document includes a passage that the Government intend should set the tone. It states:
People who want to adopt will be responded to promptly, given clear information on the recruitment, assessment and approval processes and treated fairly, openly and with respect.
There is absolutely nothing objectionable about that; it seems to be carefully drafted and entirely proper.
There is an important omission, however. There is no sense in that document that adopters are valuable, valued and important. Indeed, if they do not come forward in greater numbers, it will not be possible to realise the objectives of the White Paper. It would be helpful to show a little more warmth and commitment to adopters as a group.
I make that point for two reasons. The first is that—unlike social workers, doctors or teachers—adopters are a scattered community. They are not a profession; they cannot express their frustration, lack of morale, problems, difficulties over bad publicity and so on. That is all the more reason for the Government to acknowledge publicly that they are an important part of the process.
Secondly, there is a problem of adopter recruitment. Two years ago, there was an enormous profusion of interest in adoption after several harrowing television programmes; 24,000 people expressed interest. Of course, many of those expressions were flippant or had not been thought through. Few of them ever bore fruit. That has never been fully explained to me, but it suggests a lack of receptiveness in the system.
The appeals process is absolutely crucial to the confidence of adopters. The Government have obviously given much thought to that issue. The White Paper contains a helpful passage—paragraph 6.23—that seems to represent a clear commitment to the appeals process. However, I have some concerns on the matter and some suggestions as to how the system might work.
Having seen some difficult cases, I think that there is a role for a system of independent appeals for adopters who have difficulties with the approval process; for birth parents, who are also important actors; and for third parties. I am thinking especially of the recent Klinsky case, in which a doctor had independent evidence that something was seriously remiss, wanted to be a whistleblower, but had no access to a suitable process. Appeals could encompass the concerns of all those stakeholders.
The starting point for discussion has to be the fact that most adoptions work extremely well and smoothly; about 95 per cent. of approvals occur without difficulty. However, the remaining 5 per cent. of cases often generate enormous bitterness and frustration. Because local authorities operate self-regulation systems, there is no outside appeal process so people turn to the law—as in the celebrated case to which I referred earlier.
As we know, the law is a cumbersome beast; it is slow and expensive. Adoption law is extremely complicated and requires expensive legal advice that people of ordinary means cannot afford. The legal process peters out, so people turn to the press and statements are made that compound the problems. The lack of an independent appeal process crystallises the difficulties.
Does the Minister agree that there is probably not the same enthusiasm for independent appeals in the professions—in the system and in social work


departments—as there is among adopters themselves? Indeed, there is some resistance to appeals. That is why I press my case and hope that the Minister will confirm his commitment.
Why does self-regulation not work? The problem is partly inherent in all such internal complaints systems. For example, despite all the good intentions, the police complaints procedure rarely produces satisfactory remedies, which is why the Home Secretary wants to make it more independent. There is an additional problem with adoption. I do not know whether the Minister will confirm this, but insurance is a particular problem. If a social services department admits liability, it blows its insurance cover. That serious technical problem prevents the openness that would be expected in an internal, self-regulating complaints process.
Such difficulties lead people to conclude that a proper, stand-alone independent appeals system should deal with the relatively small number of cases that produce a breakdown. I do not know how far the Minister has thought through the practical problems of operating such a system, but various suggestions have been made. The first suggestion is that the system should be broadly based and open to birth parents, adopters and third parties. An obvious requirement is that it should have a gatekeeper, so that frivolous complaints are not allowed and only serious investigations can take place. Clearly, there should be pre-selection, as with the ombudsman and similar schemes. The appeals need to be dealt with very quickly, otherwise the system would defeat the objective of speedy adoption—the key to the policy.
I do not know whether the Government have considered the suggestion that they will have to set up a body or a formal structure to deal with the ratification of the Hague convention—an issue that arises from the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999. That structure could provide a vehicle for an independent complaints appeals procedure. That is the main point that I want to make based on my own experience and discussions with the various adoption groups.
I am sure that the importance of speed is recognised in fact, it is stated explicitly in the White Paper but I want to make two specific points, the first of which is about infants. I understand that 2,200 children under the age of one are currently awaiting adoption, 770 of whom have waited for more than six months and 990 between two and six months—very young babies. Has any thought been given to creating a fast-track procedure for infants, as opposed to other categories of children?
My other question about speed relates to the text of the draft standards. The Government are clearly committed to six-month time horizons, making the process quicker. That is welcome, but how will they work? How will local authorities be required to report whether six months has been exceeded? Many of the emotive difficulties with inter-racial adoption are not about race, but about time periods. Everyone accepts that same-race placements are almost invariably best, but it is a matter of how quickly they can take place. The issue is very much one of speed and how time limits can be set and made meaningful.
I became involved in such problems in the first place because of overseas adoption. Apart from the difficulties of domestic adoption, we have a culture that is resistant to overseas adoption. For example, last year in this country, 350 such cases were approved; in France, it is 10

times that number. In talking to people in the social services profession, not necessarily those in my area, I have sensed a certain sniffiness and suspicion of the people who opt for overseas adoption. That is wholly unjustified; we live in an increasingly globalised environment. People have voluntary and paid jobs abroad and marry foreign husbands and wives, and it is often very natural to want to adopt from overseas. However, the system is extremely resistant to that.
As I understand it, the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), will make the process easier. However, without something to facilitate overseas adoptions to ensure that the proper channels are used overseas and in the United Kingdom, such adoptions will not become easier, or, if they do, they will happen in a highly irregular manner. The recent internet case is a good example of people using irregular or inappropriate channels. If there were a proper system of accredited agencies or an official agency that was supported with at least its start-up costs, there would be a proper, recognised and regulated procedure. That would help to avoid abuse.
I should be grateful for the Minister's reaction to those points, and I thank him for staying to reply to them.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing a debate on the issues relating to the criteria for adoption. I pay tribute to him for the way in which he has presented his case with his customary skill and precision. He has put forward a strong case and made some important points.
The hon. Gentleman raised several issues to do with the White Paper and he also referred to the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999. He was right to say that his hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) introduced this important Act, and we are very pleased that he did. One of the things that it will do is impose an obligation on local authorities to provide a proper inter-country adoption service. The hon. Member for Twickenham asked whether a proper agency would facilitate the process; in future, that will be done by local authorities or approved adoption agencies. That is an important safeguard for the quality and the integrity of the inter-country adoption procedure. I know that he and his hon. Friend support that very much, as we do.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the Act has not yet been brought into effect. I know that some Members will ask why not, since it was enacted in 1999. We have already brought one section of the Act into effect, and that relates to ensuring that people who want to adopt a child from abroad conduct a proper home assessment study in this country which has not been privately commissioned. Several concerns have been expressed about privately commissioned home study reports, and we have made sure that that practice will come to an end.
However the main thrust of the Act is to provide the legal platform to allow the United Kingdom to ratify the Hague convention. We have to ratify it as a United Kingdom, so the equivalent regulations and legislation have to pass through both the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Scottish Parliament has completed its processes but, unfortunately, the Northern


Ireland Assembly has not yet done that. I understand that it will do so later this summer, but we are not able to ratify the convention until the Northern Ireland Assembly has completed its deliberations. I hope that will be done soon, and I want to dispel any suggestion that we might be dragging our feet on ratifying the Hague convention. That is not so, but we have to ratify the convention as a United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman raised several important points about aspects of the White Paper that relate to national standards. He asked us to ensure that there is a bit more warmth, as regards the national standards, towards prospective adopters, and raised several important points about the appeal process. I am sure that he understands that the standards have been issued for consultation. We have not yet made any final decisions on what they will look like, and we shall have to wait to see what suggestions people make during the consultation exercise. We shall consider ways of improving the operation of the standards, and we shall examine carefully his comments about prospective adopters.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to reaffirm our commitment to the introduction of an independent appeals system for prospective adopters who might have been turned down by an adoption panel. As the White Paper made clear, we are fully committed to introducing a proper independent appeal system. There are number of reasons for doing that, and I shall mention two tonight. First, such a system would support good decision making in local authorities. I do not subscribe to the view that an independent appeal system will impede the process of coming to a speedy decision on adoption or will give rise to bad decisions because people are looking over their shoulders at the person standing behind them. It is important that people know that there is an independent and effective appeals procedure, and I believe that that will support, not impede, good decision making.
The second reason is simple. Concerns have been expressed about the process by which people are approved for adoption. The hon. Gentleman referred to that. Although national standards will help people to be confident that they are being treated fairly and properly, if an adoption panel decides to reject an application, the person concerned will have the right to go to an independent appeal process. It is important that we put behind us the arguments that people have been treated arbitrarily or unreasonably, because such claims are likely to impede our attempts to create greater confidence in the system. We want more people to offer themselves as adoptive parents.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned fast-tracking for infants. The adoption standards in the recent White Paper made it clear that we will ensure that voluntarily relinquished infants are placed for adoption, wherever possible, within three months. Disagreement would make that task harder, but we should be able to proceed more quickly if a child is voluntarily relinquished.
There is significant interest in the general matter of adoption. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the press and wider public interest in the adoption process which has been sparked by a long-running concern, as expressed by hon. Members, about the failures of the looked-after care system. We know that many children who leave care have limited prospects of employment and few educational

qualifications. Many of them will experience periods of homelessness and joblessness. That is unacceptable. People in care deserve the same opportunities to enjoy a stable and secure family life as any other child. Unfortunately, they have been denied that because of the way in which the care system has worked. The Government are clear that adoption holds out a positive opportunity for young people in care to enjoy the opportunities that we have taken for granted for our children.
For those reasons, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister initiated a thorough review of adoption in February. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend commissioned the performance and innovation unit in the Cabinet Office to consider the evidence and make recommendations. The report was published on 7 July last year. Following extensive consultation, we published the White Paper "Adoption: a new approach" on 21 December. It outlines the most radical overhaul of adoption law and practice in more than 25 years and sets out a vision for high-quality public services that offer new opportunities for looked-after children. It is based on placing their needs first and designed entirely from their perspective.
We know that adoption works and want more children to benefit from the generosity and commitment of adoptive families. The White Paper sets a new national target to deliver a minimum 40 per cent. increase in the number of lasting adoptions by the year 2005, although I hope that the Government's measures will help to achieve a 50 per cent. increase in that period. Our aim must be to give many hundreds more looked-after children the chance to live as a permanent member of a stable, secure and loving new family.
To meet that target, we must attract more prospective adopters. The hon. Gentleman is right about that. We must attract adopters who are suitable to meet the needs of children in the care system. We need more ethnic minority and black adopters. We also need more adopters who are able to take on sibling groups, because that is a particular issue. We also know that there is widespread concern about the fairness, clarity and consistency of the adoption process. Many people have explained that that could be deterring many potential adopters from coming forward.
To help to address those problems, we published the first ever set of national adoption standards. They will help to drive up the standards of service for children and adoptive parents in all parts of the country, making adoption services faster, fairer and more transparent. They have been written to ensure that looked-after children, prospective adopters, birth families and the general public understand what they can expect from the adoption service. They will also set challenging new targets to speed up the adoption process. I shall say a little more about that in a moment, because the hon. Gentleman expressed concern about that aspect of our proposals.
The draft national standards are underpinned by a clear set of values that govern the way in which adoption services should be managed. Most importantly, the national standards clearly spell out that the welfare, safety and needs of children must be put at the centre of the adoption process. It is important for us all to remember that adoption is about meeting the needs of children, not the needs of adults.
The Prime Minister's review of adoption identified many concerns about the current adoption process. In particular, many concerns were expressed about the assessment process for prospective adopters. At the moment that is widely perceived to be too slow, too intrusive and too bureaucratic. We are tackling those concerns.
The standards will set out how prospective adopters will be welcomed and treated in an open and fair way. In future, written eligibility criteria will be provided. People will not automatically be excluded on grounds of their age, health or other factors. There must be no blanket bans based on arbitrary criteria, because they are unfair to children who are waiting to be adopted and to prospective adopters.
The standards also make it clear that the best family for a child will be one that reflects their birth heritage. I know that the hon. Gentleman was concerned about a constituency case in which that was a controversial issue. However, no child should be denied a loving adoptive family solely on the grounds that the parents have different racial or cultural backgrounds. The primary consideration in determining a child's adoptive parents must be the child's needs, safety and well-being.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear, as I was, that current research—such as that recently published by Rushton and Minis—has confirmed that although a same-race placement is preferable, it should not be pursued at the expense of a child drifting in the care system. Our guidance to adoption agencies strongly reinforces this view.
The draft standards also propose new time scales for processing applications from prospective adopters. They can expect a written response to a first inquiry within a week; a follow-up interview and an invitation to a preparation meeting within two months, and a decision within six months of making an application to proceed. That will be a substantial improvement on the current arrangements.
We accept that delivering that will be a challenge for local social services departments. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have found, as I have, that some social services departments are able to achieve that already. The issue, as in the national health service, is consistency of performance and of raising the standards of all authorities to those achieved by the best. We know that that can be done because some authorities are doing it already. Clearly, the hurdles are not insurmountable. Social services departments will need to be supported by clear direction of public policy and backed up by investment of new resources. I hope that we are providing a clear lead on that.
For foster carers who want to adopt a child, when it is in the child's interests to do so, the application will in future be processed in just three months.
We need to recruit more adopters, however, and from more diverse ethnic backgrounds, and that is a priority too. In future, information on becoming an adoptive parent will be provided promptly, and will include details about what is expected of adopters. The assessment process will be faster, fairer and more transparent, with prospective adopters being given the opportunity to attend

preparation meetings, to learn more about the children waiting for adoption and to talk to others who have adopted children. I hope that the measures will help us to treat adopters better and to support them better so that we can attract more adoptive parents to adopt more children successfully.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, prospective adopters will have, for the first time, a right to a wholly independent review of their application, should they be turned down by an adoption agency. The PIU report recommended that an appeals mechanism for potential adopters should be put in place in all local authorities, whereby applicants who have been rejected could have their case reviewed by a panel in a neighbouring area. Feedback from the consultation exercise on the report showed that many people were concerned that this would not be independent enough. I agree.
That is why we have decided to introduce a new independent review procedure for potential adopters whose application is rejected. For the first time, prospective adopters who are to be turned down will have the right to a fully independent review of their case. We will establish an independent body, appointed by the Secretary of State. Its role will be to set up a new adoption panel to look at all the evidence again, and to make a new recommendation to the agency, either in support of the original decision or against it. The agency will have to take account of that new recommendation before making its final decision. The new panel will be entirely independent, with no representation on it from the original panel. I accept that the Department will need to do more work to finalise the details of how the new independent appeals system will work. We will bring forward our proposals in the near future.
This year the Government will carry out a fundamental review of the adoption assessment process and the operation of adoption panels, including consideration of streamlining the assessment of "second time around" adopters, to explore what improvements could be made, with a view to implementing improvements during 2002.
In the meantime, we will be working with local authorities to review current assessment practice and to identify areas of best practice. We will also be consulting stakeholders later in the year on how the assessment process could be tailored for different groups such as foster carers, friends and families, and those who have adopted previously.
The White Paper also spelled out that a clearer legal duty will be placed on local councils to plan for and provide comprehensive support services for adoptive families. That will apply equally to all adopters, including those adopting children from overseas. Families adopting children will be entitled to have their needs for support services properly assessed. They will have access to a comprehensive package of post-adoption support, including adoption allowances, in a way that is more consistent throughout the country—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.